# Do American infantrymen carry too much gear? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724 "2011-03-07T01:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/21 "2011-03-07T15:28:11Z")
There are plenty of ways to reduce a soldier’s load. Remove body armor and all the protective inserts – there goes 35 pounds. Take away tactical radios and batteries – there goes another five pounds. No more night vision – a few pounds there. Suddenly you’ve reduced about a third of a soldier’s weight, and only sacrificed his ability to survive, communicate, and operate at night. Those aren’t very important things, are they? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/22 "2011-03-07T15:36:20Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’ve read that infantrymen today carry up to 120 pounds of gear. By contrast, a fully armored knight of the late middle ages would have only been wearing 40 to 50 pounds of plate armor, and that would have been evenly distributed over his entire body and fully articulated! For what it’s worth, a knight of the late middle ages didn’t have to carry anything but weapons and armor because there would have been a baggage train behind him that by custom was more or less sacrosanct. Things work rather differently now. If you leave everything but your weapons in an unguarded column of trucks, you’ll soon have nothing left but your weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/23 "2011-03-07T15:50:51Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Does the author realize that ‘living off the land’ means stealing food from the locals whose hearts and minds you are trying to win?! Well, soldiers can live off wild berries. Just avoid the ones that taste like burning. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/24 "2011-03-07T16:15:42Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > But who are American troops fighting right now that uses tanks or any armor at all? The Taliban doesn’t have tanks, do they? (Maybe they have a few left over Soviet tanks? I really don’t know.) Seems like all our current enemies are very lightly equipped. Hence the e.g. … you could apply the same logic to having to take a fixed position without heavy weapons, or winding up in backcountry with insufficient provisions, or not having a backup radio, etc. It’s always a tradeoff; if you choose to not carry a given bit of gear, in the interests of being light and speedy, sooner or later you will find yourself in the position of wishing you had it at some moment. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t necessarily go light. I’m not a soldier, but I backpack as a hobby. For a six-day hike, I keep my pack weight down to around 30 pounds, because I want to be comfortable and move quickly if I need to. But I still inevitably end up having moments where I think it’d be nice to have brought my pipe, or a book, or more food or rope or another pair of socks, or whatever. Some people carry heavier packs because they like to be prepared for anything – and then they grunt under 45 pounds of gear. Some people go ultralight, and venture into wilderness carrying only 10 pounds – and then toss and turn because they’re sleeping in their clothes on the hard ground. Everybody has their preferences as to what they’ll live with and what tradeoff they want to make. The military faces the same issue, just with much higher stakes – and with the major differences that lot of those tradeoff decisions have to be made by officers on behalf of the men, and their incentives are very different. Take first aid and water: I carry minimal first aid gear and often drink untreated water from springs and creeks. That’s a choice I make based in part on the desire to keep weight down, and the risks I am willing to run. But if I was equipping _you_ for a backpacking trip, and I was going to be accountable for what happened to you, I’d damn well issue you a full first-aid kit, covering any remotely possible accident, and a top-of-the-line water filter. Yeah, it’s three more pounds you gotta shlep up a mountain, but _my_ ass is covered. Continue that thought process for every single piece of gear in the pack, and it’s very easy to wind up with a 50-pound bag … and that’s civilian. Start adding weapons, and you can see where it winds up. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/25 "2011-03-07T16:21:24Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > I am currently reading the “Chindit War” (“light” troops in 194 Burma.) They were expected to carry something like 70-80 pounds of equipment, plus food and water. They were supposed to be extremely light, fast moving and able to survive in the jungle for long periods. I think leaders, given the opportunity, will load soldiers until they reach the practical limit of what a fit human can carry, which appears to be 60-80 pounds for normal purposes. The Chindits were also able to operate deep in the jungle behind Japanese lines not because they could off the land but rather because Allied air superiority allowed them to be resupplied by airdrops and call in air strikes to replace artillery support. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/26 "2011-03-07T16:37:56Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Or Strong Back. “War. War never changes.” > > Okay, first of all, you never run full force after your enemy, lest he be drawing you into a trap. You establish positions, set up converging fields of fire, and draw your opponent into you or wait for him to travel along an established route. Bing knows this because he wrote extensively on the topic of small unit tactics in his monographs. > > Second, a 120 lb loadout is by no means a load a soldier or marine would carry on combat patrol, much less an active operation unless most of it are consumables (ammunition, mines, et cetera) intended to be set up or used from a fixed position. A 60-70 lb loadout is a practical maximum for the 95% infantryman, and that is generally only carried by the radioman or mortar operator. > > Third, a lot of the additional weight that soldiers carry today versus previous conflicts are batteries for comms and target devices. Being able to call in a strike and able to target precision-guided munitions from the ground is a dramatic force multiplier, especially for light infantry who are basically incapable of taking on armor or heavy arms by themselves (_The Guns of Navarone_ not withstanding). This is especially true in the mountainous and unfamiliar terrain of the Afghan Hindu Kush, where American infantrymen are dramatically disadvantaged against even poorly equipped Afghan natives who are experienced in moving around and navigating terrain. > > Fourth, the blog post linked to by the o.p. has a few salient points, but appears to come from a position of dramatic ignorance about the role of modern light infantry and what is practicable. Light infantry do not “live off the land” or generally “operate separated from their lines of communications by depending on enemy and indigenous supplies.” Light infantry (the newest moniker is actually “fast infantry” despite the fact that they are actually the slowest of all infantry forces to tactically deploy) is intended to be a scouting and skirmishing force, not generally a deep penetration force, and is not intended to operate independent of communications, though it is supposed to be logistically self-supporting for durations of up to 14 days. The concept of generalized light infantry has largely given way to task-oriented fast infantry or expeditionary units which rely upon close air or artillery support for any objectives of significant strength. > > In Afghanistan, the light infantry has been used to pursue small groups because it is more mobile that mechanized infantry, and more reliable than air assault in high altitude mountains where LZs are scarce and cover for the opposition is plentiful (as seen during Operation Anaconda. However, the most typical tactics are for light infantry are to call in air support like the AC-130U ‘Spooky’ to obliterate the opposition and then mop up rather than engage in direct combat operations whenever feasible. > > Stranger Who said run full force into the enemy? If they shoot at us from afar, we have to go and get them so they do not do it again. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/27 "2011-03-07T18:43:52Z")
On the othe hand (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > An Army Science Board study in 2001 recommended that no soldiers carry more than 50 pounds. Yet the Times said a 2003 Army study found that soldiers on extended foot patrols carry an average load ranging from 87 to 127 pounds. > > A study led by a Johns Hopkins University researcher found that nearly one-third of all medical evacuations from Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 through 2007 resulted from musculoskeletal, connective-tissue or spinal injuries. That was **more than double the number of evacuations from combat injuries**. [http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/02/ap-report-soldiers-carry-too-much-weight-021411/](http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/02/ap-report-soldiers-carry-too-much-weight-021411/) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/28 "2011-03-07T19:22:21Z")
Presumably not counting the number of combat injuries that excessive loading contributed to. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/29 "2011-03-07T19:29:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Basically, from what I’ve read, speed is a lifesaver in combat, whether we’re talking about a tank, a person or a ship. If you’re not there to be hit, or not exposed as long, it doesn’t really matter how good your armor is. Mistaking speed as maneuverability on the battlefield for tanks or ships and sacrificing armor for speed has a bad history. It’s the armor protection that allows maneuvering on the battlefield; all the speed in the world won’t let you to maneuver on the battlefield if the armor is too thin. See for example the Soviet [BT series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank) fast tanks. They were very fast and well armed but achieved this by having armor so thin that it could be penetrated with ease by the lightest of anti-tank weapons or even a .50 round. Its successor was the very successful T-34 which was very heavily armored for its day. Then there was the battlecruiser, which was armed like a battleship but sacrificed armor for speed with the assumption that speed would give safety to compensate for the lack of armor. This proved not to be the case at all, leading to Admiral David Beatty’s comment that [“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today”](http://www.davidkhurst.com/bloodyships.htm) when 3 British battlecruisers were lost at Jutland in very short order and a 4th narrowly avoided being lost only by rapid flooding of the ammunition magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/30 "2011-03-07T19:51:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Presumably not counting the number of combat injuries that excessive loading contributed to. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of non-combat musculoskeletal injuries that don’t have anything to do with load carrying. People injure themselves that way all the time, even when not running/jumping/climbing trees. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/31 "2011-03-07T20:14:25Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The Chindits were also able to operate deep in the jungle behind Japanese lines not because they could off the land but rather because Allied air superiority allowed them to be resupplied by airdrops and call in air strikes to replace artillery support. Though that did not always work out as planned … see _Out of the Blue_ for a rather trenchant critique of the Chindit’s use of air support by Terence O’Brien, a pilot who marched with the Chindits. For example … air support was supposed to operate as “flying artillery”, but bombing in a jungle environment did not, in fact, replace artillery in effect; even with radio linked observers on the ground, the bombers rarely found their targets … ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/32 "2011-03-08T03:04:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > For example … air support was supposed to operate as “flying artillery”, but bombing in a jungle environment did not, in fact, replace artillery in effect; even with radio linked observers on the ground, the bombers rarely found their targets … True, and not just in the jungle. Close tactical air support was rather dangerous until very late in the war and resulted in a great deal of friendly fire. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/33 "2011-03-08T12:44:13Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Who said run full force into the enemy? If they shoot at us from afar, we have to go and get them so they do not do it again. That’s the sort of mentality that gets you drawn into an ambush. You do not run pell-mell at a retreating enemy; you let them withdraw to a position they think is safe, while tracking, flanking, and calling in overwhelming fire support. The idea that the loadout means that soliders “can’t catch” their opponents is either misunderstood or taken out of context. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/34 "2011-03-08T14:17:04Z")
Does the American military really have soldiers go on long marches anymore? I realize they obviously go on patrols and the like, but I can’t imagine the Iraq invasion had any units starting at the Kuwati border and marching to Baghdad. I kinda presume that when they need to get from A to B they ride in helicopters, trucks, tanks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/35 "2011-03-08T14:47:23Z")
Well, that’s how they get from A to Z. To get from S to T they might have to hoof it. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/36 "2011-03-08T17:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 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 101 pounds. **The heaviest load, 132 pounds, was 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. > **[Infantry: Lose Weight Or Die](http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090324.aspx)** > > After years of complaints from the infantry, including everyone from officers to NCOs to the newest grunt to arrive, the US Army is going to try something drastic about the weight situation A battalion in Afghanistan is being equipped with the... > [@](#): > > 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. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724/37 "2011-03-08T18:05:14Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’ve read that infantrymen today carry up to 120 pounds of gear. By contrast, a fully armored knight of the late middle ages would have only been wearing 40 to 50 pounds of plate armor, and that would have been evenly distributed over his entire body and fully articulated! That’s just the armor. It doesn’t include weapons, consumables, servicing tools, or the most important feature of a fully armored knight of the middle ages – the horse he rode in on. And then add the horse’s consumables and servicing tools. It took a lot of logistics to support (literally!) a knight in heavy plate. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > However, the most typical tactics are for light infantry are to call in air support like the AC-130U ‘Spooky’ to obliterate the opposition and then mop up rather than engage in direct combat operations whenever feasible. This is a great use of “There’s no kill like overkill.” Standoff weapons like the Spooky are a great way to make those poor bastards die for their side. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-american-infantrymen-carry-too-much-gear/573724.md?page=1)