US Army infantry soldiers have a weight problem — but not the kind American civilians have:
Infantry soldiers are rarely overweight. But they are carrying more and more weight, and it’s having an adverse effect on performance, morale and physical fitness. Troops are frequently carrying 50-60 kg (110-132 pounds). That means they cannot move as fast as the enemy, and when they try to they tire faster and get frustrated, and often injured (by the enemy or by the sheer physical stress of hustling with all that weight on them.) Long term, troops are developing the kind of physical stress injuries athletes are prone to (eventually) when they overdo it.
Why are they carrying so much gear? It’s not always up to them:
The brass insist on a lot of stuff being carried mainly so there will be no media blowback if someone, somewhere, complains that troops died because they lacked a particular item.
[...]
Many soldiers and marines point out that the SOCOM operators (Special Forces and SEALs) will sometimes go into action without their protective vests. Again, that is done because completion of the mission is more important than covering your ass when a reporter goes after you for “unnecessary casualties.” Many of the troops are willing to take the risk, because they believe, for example, that taking down a sniper when you have the chance, is worth it. If you don’t catch the guy, he will be back in action the next day, killing Americans.
Some numbers:
Currently, the lightest load carried, the “fighting load” for situations where the troops were sneaking up on the enemy and might be involved in hand-to-hand combat, is 28.6 kg (63 pounds). The “approach march load,” for when infantry were moving up to a position where they would shed some weight to achieve their “fighting load”, is 46 kg (102 pounds). The heaviest load, 60 kg (132 pounds), is the emergency approach march load, where troops had to move through terrain too difficult for vehicles. As in the past, the troops often ignored the rules and regulations and dumped gear so they could move, or keep moving.
In Afghanistan, the problem is made worse by the high altitudes (up to 5,000 meters) the troops often operate at. The researchers found that in Afghanistan, even though the infantry were in excellent physical shape, troops would sweat nearly 590 ml (20 ounces) of fluid an hour while marching at high altitudes in bright sunlight in moderate temperatures. That meant more weight, in water, had to be found to keep these guys going.
So the Army has changed its fitness tests to emphasize getting in shape for what matters in modern warfare:
The new physical training puts more emphasis on speed (which is used more in combat, as in sprinting for cover or a new firing position), flexibility (lots of squirming around in combat, going through windows or over obstacles) and strength (troops are carrying more weight, and there’s always been a lot of heavy lifting in combat.) What is deemphasized is long marches (trucks and helicopters have made that rare) and distance running (another very infrequent demand these days).
This is why the 1930s Small Wars Manual put out by the Marines had chapters discussing the proper handling of mules.
It’s a shame the mule can’t wear your body armor for you.
When I was deployed to Iraq — I was in supply, not combat arms — our required convoy gear was:
M16 – 8 lbs
7 loaded mags – 7 lbs
2 1-quart canteens, full – 5 lbs
Interceptor Body Armor – 16.5 lbs
MICH helmet – 3 lbs
NVGs (PVS-7) – 3 lbs
Gas Mask – 7 lbs
This totals to about 50 lbs, which is pretty close to the “fighting load” listed above. (I haven’t added stuff like uniform, trauma medical supplies, etc. to the weight estimates.)
Honestly, I don’t think that any of those items can reasonably be cut.
As a side note, back strength is a definite weakness of the (US) Army physical fitness program. I got a back ache about 4 months into the deployment that didn’t go away until I got home. I belatedly figured out what was going on, but by then it was a bit too late.
I didn’t realize that a gas mask weighed almost as much as a rifle.
I suppose neck strength is important, if you’re going to be wearing six pounds of helmet and night vision goggles — plus, perhaps, seven pounds of gas mask, too.
The body armor will probably get lighter and lighter until we face an enemy with access to more than just surplus AKs. I wouldn’t be surprised if the higher-ups wanted machine-gun-proof plates.
I’m not sure about the mask weight. That’s the weight I found online, but it could be off by a pound or two. It was listed as “shipping weight”. The number definitely includes the weight of the carrying bag and accessories (charcoal strips, detection papers, other decon gear and possibly a spare canister) that you wouldn’t have on your head.
The problem here lies in the “better to have and not need than to need and not have” planning that is necessary in a combat situation where having that extra clip of ammunition or that bulky winter clothing could be the difference between going home alive or in pieces. The issue not being addressed is that the soldiers often jettison their bulky load so that they can make the march, or alternatively, continue carrying it and arrive exhausted and unable to fight.
If I recall correctly, this was one of the reasons that the invasion of Adak Island in the Aleutian chain was so costly to America. (As I recall, it was the most deadly battle fought, per capita, in the entire Pacific campaign, although there were so few men involved that it wasn’t that remarkable an engagement.) The steep terrain and hostile climate of the Aleutians required men to walk in terrain that would daunt even the healthiest amoung us, carrying loads that would give a mule pause. The men jettisoned a huge amount of gear on the march in and, as a result, many died of exposure during the campaign, for lack of the very gear that they dropped. They argued that they would have never made it far enough to freeze had they not dropped it.
What is a soldier to do?
My answer? Pack animals. As a civilian, I never venture far off the drivable road without pack animals to haul my gear. Why should the military be any different? I am of the opinion that pack animals still have a place in the modern military in places like Afghanistan, and I don’t understand why we refuse to use them.
My understanding is that (1) pack animals do not travel well via truck or helicopter, and (2) pack animals need significant amounts of fodder (10 lbs per day) if they’re not able to stop and graze. So, pack animals are hard to transport over large distances, and they can’t transport themselves over moderate distances, either, unless there is plenty of food along the way.
It looks like the Americans invaded Attu Island from Adak Island. The troops hadn’t planned the loading of the ships, and they hadn’t rehearsed the landing and unloading either. The vehicles they brought along couldn’t traverse the muddy terrain near the shore, and they didn’t bring cold-weather gear — to an island off the coast of Alaska. Further, their sleeping bags were meant to arrive the next day, after combat necessities — but the unloading process was so slow that they went without sleeping bags for days. Because of the perpetual fog, artillery spotters couldn’t direct fire — so they ran through all their ammo hoping to hit something.
You’re right; that does sound like a miserable little campaign.