# The Soldier's Load and the Immobility of a Nation



## Shrek1985 (16 Jul 2014)

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/07/politics/body-armor-doesnt-always-make-sense-for-our-soldiers/

Interesting points, I agree with most of them, but I can't see this kind of thinking ever getting anywhere in the CF.

What do you guys think?


----------



## bick (16 Jul 2014)

There were times in Afghanistan, yes, OTW, that we didn't wear body armor. It's not the norm, but does happen.


----------



## Fabius (16 Jul 2014)

The debate regarding the use and misuse of body armour has been present it seems ever since the use of modern body armour really expanded in the early 2000s.
This debate is obviously quite vigorous in the US and not so much elsewhere it seems.  This is too bad as it is a rather important question, especially if we find ourselves in a tropical enviroment.  The use of body armour really seems to revolve around the issues of force protection and force mobility/effectiveness.

As indicated in the article linked above the force protection issue appears to be highly related to the desire to prevent any friendly casualties (nothing wrong with this in and of itself).  With the set of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan the number of friendly casualties being sustained was a consideration in the maintenance of political and social willingness to continue the prosecution of the conflicts.  Sadly this appears to have resulted in the various national militaries (Canada’s included) adding force protection measures such as rifle rated body armour with deltoid, throat, groin, etc protection and mandating their use irrespective of the operational tasks, weather, or threat.

While the overall weight of modern body armour is dropping, even light weight soft armour will have an impact on a soldiers ability to maneuver and will result in a larger sustainment requirement in regards to hydration and the amount of water that a soldier would need to carry or have available.

The biggest problem that I see for the future in terms of the use of body armour is that the various armies remain risk adverse and in order to be able to say that the organization did everything possible to prevent a casualty, they mandate that all armour will be worn at all times.  This in my opinion is the completely wrong approach rather we should be enabling our professional soldiers to practice mission command and based upon their assessments of the operational tasks, the weather, the most likely and most dangerous threats choose the tools required to complete the mission in the most effective manner.  Just as the tool box currently contains a number of different weapon systems a commander can choose the tool box should also contain different levels of armour ranging from a simple plate carrier for if the threat is primarily small arms or a soft armour vest if the threat is primarily fragmentation, all the way up to the full meal deal if you will with soft armour vest with deltoid, throat and groin protection and rifle rated plates with helmet and face shield.

Such a practice though would have to accept that we would on occasion take casualties that may have been prevented had they been wearing the full armour package vice only a plate carrier.  The chain of command would have to be willing to support the decisions made at a lower level and be able to defend and articulate why soldiers are not always wearing all the protection theoretically possible.


----------



## Tibbson (16 Jul 2014)

Fabius said:
			
		

> Sadly this appears to have resulted in the various national militaries (Canada’s included) adding force protection measures such as rifle rated body armour with deltoid, throat, groin, etc protection and mandating their use irrespective of the operational tasks, weather, or threat.
> 
> While the overall weight of modern body armour is dropping, even light weight soft armour will have an impact on a soldiers ability to maneuver and will result in a larger sustainment requirement in regards to hydration and the amount of water that a soldier would need to carry or have available.
> 
> The biggest problem that I see for the future in terms of the use of body armour is that the various armies remain risk adverse and in order to be able to say that the organization did everything possible to prevent a casualty, they mandate that all armour will be worn at all times.



Agreed.  Sadly its always going to be easier for Commanders (aand the press) to conclude a soldier became a casualty due to a lack of body armour easier then it will be to conclude he/she became a casualty due to a lack of mobility or the heat/weight of all that equipment.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (16 Jul 2014)

During my last sojourn in the desert, our location was being hit multiple times daily from the same direction. I made the suggestion to the platoon commander one night that rather than have a cumbersome clearance patrol mounted at the end of the tic, fully dressed etc etc, why not have 6-8 of your fittest dudes, with 1 sgt/mcpl who is also 'fleet of foot', who, upon the initiation of a contact, would head out the gate with minimal equipment (think combat shirts with 6-8 mags and some frag, bayonets fixed too, that is all) to '*close with and destroy the enemy*...

....I was looked at like I had 2 heads......


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (16 Jul 2014)

That variety of brazen offensive action would instill the fear of God into the heathen. However, with this political climate I would think the pl comd would be accused of taking unnecessary risks and relieved of command. Nowadays people are more concerned with not losing than winning a war.


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2014)

Gee...this was standard dress not so long ago....


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2014)

How do you win a counterinsurgency campaign, if you can’t catch the enemy?

Imagine, friends, four combatants in march order, as they march to, through and from history. One is a Macedonian phalangite, a pikeman, accompanying Alexander and trudging toward Herat. Then next is a Roman legionary of the middle Empire, on his way to drub some band of barbarians or rebels. Third is a Pashtun fighter in Afghanistan, whether he is fighting us or was fighting the Soviets makes little difference. Last, in more ways than one, comes an American soldier, also in Afghanistan.

What is the phalanglite lugging on his body? Sources for things like this are always a little iffy, with ancient military history, but modern scholarship, driven in good part by finds at Vergina, believes that the typical phalangite carried about 23.1 kilograms (about 51 pounds) of arms and armor, consisting of his Sarissa, shield, helmet, dagger, sword, torso armor and such. He may have also started his march, nine days prior, carrying some 30 pounds of food. Now he’s down to about three pounds and expecting the trains to keep him supplied from here on. Water, clothing, footwear, camp and cooking utensils, might have added 20 pounds or so to that (I’m swagging that, of course; we really don’t know). Call it a 73 pounds on our pikeman’s back, just before he settles into camp outside Herat.1 He goes into action with about 51 pounds, but nobody expects him to be all that mobile on the battlefield.


Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/23/politics/the-soldiers-load-the-immobility-of-a-nation/#ixzz37gC0HHnu


http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/23/politics/the-soldiers-load-the-immobility-of-a-nation/


----------



## Fabius (16 Jul 2014)

Fragmentation vests did start being widely issued and used in WW2, primarily within RAF Bomber Command and then the US bomber forces as well.  In Korea and Vietnam the fragmentation vests started seeing a wider scale of issue to ground forces. The issuing of body armour with the capacity to stop rifle rounds did not really take off until the most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Interestingly the fragmentation vests used by US forces in Vietnam were quite light in comparison to what we are seeing issued now.
The M69 vest used by the US Army in Vietnam weighed around 8-10lbs depending on size.  The M1955 vest used by the US Marines weighed a couple pounds more.

In about 1967 the US Army trialed something called the Variable Armour System. This was basically a modular armour system consisting of both hard rifle rated plates and soft armour vest. Its total weight was 20.5lbs. The US Army at the time found that that armour system was too heavy and restrictive for forces attempting to patrol or manoeuvre but that it was useful for troops operating in relatively static positions such as hill top firebases.

Contrast all those weights with the 30-35lb weight of the modern US Army IOTV with all of that systems deltoid, throat and groin protection in place.

Don't get me wrong. Modern body armour is very capable and is very useful and we do need it, just perhaps not in all situations at all times.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2014)

This may speak to culture or maybe something else, but the load of a heavy Infantry soldier in the Classical/Western tradition has always been in the range of 30+ kilos, from a Greek Hoplite to "Tommies" going over the top at the Somme, right until the present day.

Of course the heavy armed and armoured Infantryman of the Classical and Western tradition has also been virtually unbeatable in a straight up fight (ask the Persians), which may also explain why most of our opponents avoid straight up fights whenever possible.

I also think the article is coflating _tactical_ mobility (or lack thereof) with _operational_ and _strategic_ mobility. Canada, a nation with a fairly small and modest military capability, can project a battle group halfway around the world and sustain it for as long as there is political will to do so, even if the dismounted infantry comes up a bit short running the enemy to ground. 

As for fighting and winning a counterinsurgency using heavy Infantry, it is possible (to a certain extent). Both the Macedonians and the Romans fought and won what we might consider counterinsurgency campaigns; Alexander III in modern Afghanistan and the Romans in Spain.


----------



## x_para76 (16 Jul 2014)

IMO the Canadian armour system is a little OTT. The shoulder brassards, neck, and groin protection restrict movement too much for my liking. 

In the Falklands war the Brits from my understanding wore no body armour. I can't imagine how my predecessors from 2 & 3 Para would've faired tabbing across the Falklands in full kit with the addition of body armour? Likely it's greatest benefit would've been as additional warm kit.


----------



## BC Old Guy (17 Jul 2014)

An interesting take on this question has been set out in SLA Marshall's article/book "The Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation", 1950.  I bought mine at the US Infantry School, and found that it posed some interesting questions, and offered suggestions for infantry leaders to consider.  Many disagree with his work, and question his research methods.  Despite this, it is an interesting departure from many other thoughts expressed about the issue of the infantry, the load carried, and how the infantry fights.

BCOG


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2014)

"Ten years ago I had to carry a hundred pounds of really heavy shit. Now, I get to carry a hundred pounds of really light shit."


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2014)

2002 Power Point on US Army Coy Loads

http://thedonovan.com/archives/CombatLoadPresentation.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2014)

Here's an interesting Aussie study.

One suggested solution - add slaves as baggage carriers.  It worked for the Hoplites.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2014)

And a 2007 USMC study for good measure


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2014)

In Northern Ireland, in the 'cuds', we carried a day pack with scoff, brew kit, a rain jacket and a few other odds and ends, and wore a web belt with ammo and a water bottle. 

Body armour/ helmets weren't even an option as they would slow us down and limit our 'sensing' abilities. The most likely cause of demise would be a big effing 1000lb ANFO bomb of some kind anyways, and body armour wouldn't even keep the pieces together, so why bother.

Maroon machine beret on melon, rifle in mitts, ready to rock an roll.

I am guessing that I carried no more than 30 lbs. Ever. We covered dozens of miles by day, and night, mostly on foot, across country, over hill and dale, through rivers/swamps/silage pits etc. 

Once we got back to 'peacetime' soldiering, of course, the kit lists came out and the crap we carried increased into the 60-80lb range, at least. :


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Maroon machine beret on melon....


Ah well, that was the equivalent of body armour


.....to hear some tell it.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Jul 2014)

Looking at photos of Canadian patrols in Korea, one thing you rarely see is a helmet.  Ideas change a lot.


----------



## Shrek1985 (18 Jul 2014)

Could we do anything about this? Engender an attitude of flexibility and tolerance as pertains to what we carry and body armour?

Maybe i'm being overly optimistic.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Could we do anything about this? Engender an attitude of flexibility and tolerance as pertains to what we carry and body armour?
> 
> Maybe i'm being overly optimistic.



I think the fight you are fighting is not so much with your fellow troops or even your command but with your politicians and your mothers.  Those ladies feel that they are loaning you to the government and expect to get you back in the same condition they supplied you.  They take it personally when bad things happen.  Those ladies also happen to elect politicians.

The ladies are not much on military niceties and necessities.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think the fight you are fighting is not so much with your fellow troops or even your command but with your politicians and your mothers.  Those ladies feel that they are loaning you to the government and expect to get you back in the same condition they supplied you.  They take it personally when bad things happen.  Those ladies also happen to elect politicians.
> 
> The ladies are not much on military niceties and necessities.



Agreed. My son was KIA in Afghanistan on 3 Sep 2008. In this case the LAV did nothing to prevent his death and the deaths of Andrew Grenon and Chad Horn.

I think is the very senior military commanders we have to thank for this. Canadians do not like the idea of troops becoming casualties......


----------



## Privateer (18 Jul 2014)

My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?



As a Tanker, armour does not make you invincible.  You still have to use cover that will protect you from enemy fire.  Being an Infantryman and being in a Tank are no different.  Either one would be foolish to sit in the open and think that their armour will protect them from all harm.  

If you have ever seen what bullets can go through, you will have to choose your cover well.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?



As a soldier who was trained in the 70s, body armor was not used. The only time we used the old frag vest was for grenade throwing in the open.....and come to think of it the first time I threw a grenade on a live fire range we didn't even have those.

Armor, IMO weighs you down and makes you less mobile. it also adds weight and stress to the body and it's critical joints....back, shoulders, knees, ankles.....but I am no medical expert.

I'd sooner go wjithout it but that's just me.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2014)

Let me offer a couple of points, the second one is germane, the first rather less so.

First, body armour was available in the Canadian Army in the Second World War, but most troops preferred not to wear it. The reasons were that it was very heavy and only protected the upper thorax so the groin, etc were unprotected. I think George Blackburn mentioned it in one of his books and there is a picture of it in another book by, I think, Service Publications.

Second, almost thirty years ago a DLR officer involved in the body armour project mentioned a post-Second World War casualty study done by the medics that concluded that fatal casualties could be reduced by x percent, I can't recall the figure but it was significant. Now, this figure was based on a Second World War battlefield where most of the wounds were caused by splinters from artillery and mortars. Would this also apply in other types of conflicts? I dunno.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah well, that was the equivalent of body armour
> 
> 
> .....to hear some tell it.



And, as my Pl Sgt noted,  2 pints, a hot meal and a BJ  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?



If you're in the infantry, you've already failed the psychology test ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2014)

> My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?



Under some circumstances, it would be better for the soldiers to take positive action. The perceived ability to do something and to make a positive change (drive off, kill or capture the enemy mortar team) may actually override any fear or doubts that the soldiers might have. OTOH, this isn't something you can do all the time, the enemy will also adapt their tactics, perhaps using a mortar to draw your troops into an ambush.

The larger issue is that organizations have become more risk adverse. This is reflected in policies like wearing armour under all circumstances, both to shield the chain of command from having to deal with negative fallout from taking "unnecessary" losses and to demonstrate that the proper process is being followed (regardless if the "tick in the box" actually makes sense). This sort of one size fits all solution is similar to an earlier idea where BMI was the single "number" that demonstrated "fitness". People who's BMI was over 35 were put on warning for being "unfit", even if their BMI was a product of being a body builder or heavily muscled athlete...

I remember a similar contrast when I was in the sandbox. While Canadians went out in LAV's and RG-31's, and Americans moved out in up armoured HMMVW's, the British would drive around in Land Rover 110's and armour them by throwing a Kevlar blanket on the floor. The Land Rover's were much lighter and able to go down side trails where the larger armoured vehicles could not, and discouraged enemy action by bristling with weapons. The Jackal patrol vehicles that I saw just prior to leaving took the idea even further, being platforms with a machine gun seemingly on every corner. Was the British solution really "better"? Or was it just a different way of approaching the same problem?


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2014)

This video is instructive. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w846UcmIo5o

138 ilbs carried by a 175lb C9 gunner

Really?


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Under some circumstances, it would be better for the soldiers to take positive action. The perceived ability to do something and to make a positive change (drive off, kill or capture the enemy mortar team) may actually override any fear or doubts that the soldiers might have. OTOH, this isn't something you can do all the time, the enemy will also adapt their tactics, perhaps using a mortar to draw your troops into an ambush.
> 
> The larger issue is that organizations have become more risk adverse. This is reflected in policies like wearing armour under all circumstances, both to shield the chain of command from having to deal with negative fallout from taking "unnecessary" losses and to demonstrate that the proper process is being followed (regardless if the "tick in the box" actually makes sense). This sort of one size fits all solution is similar to an earlier idea where BMI was the single "number" that demonstrated "fitness". People who's BMI was over 35 were put on warning for being "unfit", even if their BMI was a product of being a body builder or heavily muscled athlete...
> 
> I remember a similar contrast when I was in the sandbox. While Canadians went out in LAV's and RG-31's, and Americans moved out in up armoured HMMVW's, the British would drive around in Land Rover 110's and armour them by throwing a Kevlar blanket on the floor. The Land Rover's were much lighter and able to go down side trails where the larger armoured vehicles could not, and discouraged enemy action by bristling with weapons. The Jackal patrol vehicles that I saw just prior to leaving took the idea even further, being platforms with a machine gun seemingly on every corner. Was the British solution really "better"? Or was it just a different way of approaching the same problem?



The British approach was criticized as not providing adequate protection to the troops. Here is a link to a 2009 story regarding the Jackal and noting it was produced in response to the lack of protection afforded by the Land Rovers. This is an example of the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" principle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-how-armys-new-armoured-vehicle-is-a-death-trap-too-1769692.html


----------



## Shrek1985 (19 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> My question for the infanteers:  If the decision were made to engage the enemy without body armour (for example, as suggested above, responding to a mortar attack immediately with webbing, rifle and ammo), would there be any negative psychological effect?  I mean a greater perceived fear of injury without the armour, that could result in less effective action by the soldier?  Are our soldiers now so used to fighting with the armour that they would feel exposed without it?



I move better and faster without it, I gain no emotional comfort from wearing it and I can do without carrying my own atmosphere around with me between my tunic and my chest. I'm a huge target already and the plates don't cover very much of my chest, or back.

It wouldn't bother me at all, I think i'd like it better. Assaulting a position? Armour. Defensive? Toss-up; I'd like to wear the armour and ditch my TV at my position i'm fighting from. Room clearing; toss-up; speed and agility vs armour. I'm not very agile to begin with, so i think I come down on the side of armour there, for me maybe not for others. A2C? no armour. Presence Patrol? Armour. Recce? just this side of naked. fighting patrol? no armour. Pursuit? no armour. Anything with a pack on my back? No armour, or ditch the back plate.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jul 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This video is instructive.


 I'll say!  His pants aren't bloused!!    anic:


/HQ focus on what's _really_ important


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'll say!  His pants aren't bloused!!    anic:
> 
> 
> /HQ focus on what's _really_ important



Good point. He probably has an illegally modified hat in there somewhere too.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'll say!  His pants aren't bloused!!    anic:
> 
> 
> /HQ focus on what's _really_ important



We shall have to to investigate this ASP as it is a serious breach of dress regulations......... :sarcasm:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> As a soldier who was trained in the 70s, body armor was not used. The only time we used the old frag vest was for grenade throwing in the open.....and come to think of it the first time I threw a grenade on a live fire range we didn't even have those.
> 
> Armor, IMO weighs you down and makes you less mobile. it also adds weight and stress to the body and it's critical joints....back, shoulders, knees, ankles.....but I am no medical expert.
> 
> I'd sooner go wjithout it but that's just me.



I was just looking at the USMC study I referenced above and compared it our 1982 Gagetown standard for Fighting Order.

The USMC study claimed that a 14 man squad (including the USN Corpsman attached) carried the following:

599 lbs of Weapons, Ammo and Optics
575 lbs of Personal Protective Equipment 
414 lbs of Clothing, Food, Water, Other
29 lbs of Comms gear428 lbs of Weapons, Ammo and Optics


Adjusted downwards to the 10 man Canadian section of 1982 that would mean:

428 lbs of Weapons, Ammo and Optics
411 lbs of Personal Protective Equipment 
296 lbs of Clothing, Food, Water, Other
21 lbs of Comms gear

Looking at our 1982 scale of issue I came up with

311 lbs of Weapons Ammo and Optics

That included:

8 Bayonets
8 FN C1A1
2 FN C2A1
1480 Rds 7.62mm Ball in Mags and Bandoliers
80 Rds 7.62mm Tracer in clips
2 Cleaning Kits

Also

2 Grenades WP
2 Grenades HCC1A1
6 Grenades M67
6 LAW M72
6 Bombs 60mm (for the Platoon mortar).

The only "Optics" was the Section Leaders Flashlight - He also had the only wristwatch and the only compass.

That was it for Weapons, Ammo and Optics.

Comms at the Section Level consisted of the Section Leader's whistle.  Full Stop.  There was no more.   Versus 21 lbs for the USMC  Squad.

On Clothing, Food, Water, Others front  I am assuming that Clothing weight is not significantly different.  Food carried was only unconsumed rations for 24 hours.  

Water - apparently a major issue now - was only 10 liters for the Section for 24 hrs - ie what could be carried in your water bottles (or your Stanley's Thermos on winter exercises).  This compares to 164 US Fl Oz (x 10) or 48.6 liters for the Section - based on the CATF 82 study.


I understand this is a contentious issue but howizzit my old man survived swanning around the sands of Palestine and Jordan under exactly the same water restrictions?  Water wasn't consumed at the individual's discretion.  It was consumed under orders and in Dad's case one bottle was opened at a time and passed around until it was empty.    That was the regime the British Army used to work under all across the Empire.   Perhaps picked up from emulating the local Bedu.

Others - not much there unless you include the Section Leaders wire cutters.

An lastly the point of discussion - PPE

575 lbs of USMC PPE (pro-rated to 411 lbs for 10 Canadians)
Our PPE consisted of 10x Helmets M1 for a total of 28.5 lbs.

To summarize (in lbs):

Wpns, Ammo, Optics - 311 vs 428 
Comms -  0 vs 21
Food and Clothing - Assuming 0 difference allowing for 24 vs 72 hours of rations
Water - 22 vs 106
PPE - 28.5 vs 411

The USMC says that their 14 men are overloaded to the tune of 900 lbs.  They are carrying 1600 lbs instead of the recommended 700 lbs.
In Canadian terms that would mean 10 men carrying 1200 lbs instead of 500 lbs.

In 1982 we were carrying approximately 500 lbs for 10 men in Fighting Order.  The other 700 lbs = 100 lbs of technology (optics and comms), 100 lbs of water, 400 lbs of PPE and 100 lbs of Other Stuff and Rations (24 vs 72 hours).  Presumably that includes Gucci Kit like Israeli First Aid pouches and IVs instead of a simple Field Dressing.

Other gear was carried in the Rucksack but that was dropped at a cache prior to the assault.

I offer no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the various loads.  Not my place in my situation.  I just point out that there is quite a difference in running around carrying 50 lbs and carrying 120 lbs.

It may contribute to the tendency to keep one's pants illegally unbloused.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jul 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It may contribute to the tendency to keep one's pants illegally unbloused.


Well skipping the boot bands, plus the potential "illegally modified hat" has got to shave 3....maybe _4_ ounces off that load.   :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jul 2014)

OTOH....

The Fall of Rome

Decay of the army, according to Vegetius (5th century), the man responsible for the quote about preparing for war to ensure peace, came from within the army itself. The army grew weak from too long peace and stopped wearing its protective armor. This made them vulnerable to enemy weapons and to the temptation to flee from battle. Security may have led to cessation of the rigorous drills. Vegetius says the leaders became incompetent and rewards were unfairly distributed. See: "Vegetius on the Decay of the Roman Army, by Alfred P. Dorjahn and Lester K. Born. The Classical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Dec., 1934), pp. 148-158.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome_2.htm


----------

