U.S. Marine Corps / Aaron Henson
Popular Mechanics: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
Technology was supposed to be the solution. Instead, it added to the problem.
In this era of computerized conflict, dominated by cyberwarfare, laser weapons, and piloting drones from halfway around the world, it can be easy to overlook the importance of a soldier's own muscle power. Despite the relentless march of technology—and in some ways, because of it—soldiers on the march are carrying more weight on their backs than ever before, even going back to the days of swords and armor.
What the heck happened? Over the last decade, hyped technologies such as robotic mules and wearable exoskeletons promised to free up soldiers from hauling so much gear. Instead, the demands of the modern battlefield only increased the load.
This is one problem which technology alone may not be able to solve.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: America's enemies on the battlefield carry a fraction in weight when compared to U.S. soldiers. But they suffer far heavier casualties. If given a choice .... I would prefer lesser casualties and sore muscles over a high death toll any day.
WNU,
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree. It would be interesting to have the soldier's opinion.
The heavy weight soldier's must carry in actual fact endangers them greatly, rather than protecting them. Studies have shown substantial reductions in speed, endurance, and agility due to thr weight. Soldiers conducuting section attacks are often out of breathe within 100m or less. In some cases, soldiers are unable to get up quickly or at all from the prone position during attacks. And when they do, they make for easier targets because they move a lot slower. The physical exhaustion further degrades their situational awareness, decision making, and precise tasks like marksmanship.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that commander's are more risk adverse (ie. Add extra body armour or refusing to remove body armour). There is an article online from the British Army perspective in Afghanistan regarding thise.
Another problem is capability creep. For example, the Carl Gustav 84mm recoiless rifle was significantly reduced in weight by using carbon fibre instead of steel. The commanders then added an optic to it that completely negated the weight savings of the carbon fibre build.
There is also a lack of comprehension on effectiveness of a soldier's load out. Many soldier's carry more ammunition than they need and expend a lot of it ineffectively. They also carry weapon systems (ie. M-249 and M-203) which add significant weight with very limited capability all in the name of extra firepower. The M-249 is particularly bad for this which is why the USMC has dropped it in favour of the M-27.
In short, they are asking too much of their units and individual soldiers. Asking them to carry too much ammunition, batteries, armour, weapon systems, various accessories, etc.
Very accurate.... I spent three years in infantry and weight is an issue. Also we had many sprained ankles and back injuries du to jumping over walls and uneven ground.
DeleteI agree that the above post is very accurate. This dilemma is very old and there has never been a satisfactory resolution.
Delete