A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Mobility

[NMshooter]

Reading Not A Good Day To Die, the part that really stuck in my mind was the Rakkasans marching to the LZ, and having to ditch a lot of gear so they could move fast.

IBA with the insert plates weighs about 20 lbs., plus whatever the rucksacks weighed, not counting helmets, weapons, or ammo.

The load just seems to grow and grow, various special folks average 165 lbs. for their field load.

Every former infantryman I meet has back, knee, and shoulder problems.

Does not seem to be any good answers to this problem, either.

At least I do not have to worry about unit equipment, but I get the impression some folks with families have their own version of "unit equipment", the stuff the rest of the family can not carry.

Better to find out your limits now, and adjust planning accordingly, than to say "I'll manage somehow" and find out you can not later.

 

[roo_ster]

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth & I was still working for Uncle Sam, ruck marching was my forte. Lotsa weight & pretty darned fast. Generally 2-3X the "standard" load (which was standard for nobody, in reality).
Squats & deadlifts helped ruck marching but cratered your 2 mile run.

Five or so ankle operations later, I have recovered enough to shoulder the equivalent of a standard load (~45lb pack plus other goodies) for 4-5 miles at a 15 minute/mile pace. I do it about every other week on Saturdays. 2-3 times/week I wlak ~2 miles. All my walking/marching is done in either my issue leg boots or issue jungle boots.

Also, I usually take my boy along in a jog stroller. He enjoys it. All in all, pretty good cardio & fat burning.

 

[desert_scorpion]

I spent my time in the Army with the 82nd, and while I would not give up those experiences. I would like to be rid of the pain that stayed with me, especially in my knees. The right load is mysterious ground, either your carrying proper body size to load weight and don't carry everything you may need, Or you pack the gear your gonna need and pay for it later.

 

[armoredman]

Moaning about backpacks gos all the way back to when Roman legionaries called themselves Marius' mules" for the emperor's insitance that they carry thier own loads, called soldiers impedimentus, AKA, everything he could possibly carry. It reduced dependance on wagon trains, pack mules, and vulnerable supply lines. The same thinking holds true today.
Now you know why I joined the Navy...we even took our own store with us into combat...

 

[CAnnoneer]

+1 armoredman

In the dark ages, the chainmail was so heavy and uncomfortably weighing down on the shoulders that typical patrols could only ride for a few hours before they had to rest. One of the reasons for castle-building was to provide a safe place for the knights to take off the chainsuits and recover.

The advent of plate armor improved the situation by redistributing the weight far more evenly, as well as providing a better protection. However, more and more pieces were added to the suit, until the same mobility and overload problems reemerged.

In the late middle ages and early Renaissance, even the foot soldiers were required to march in full plate, which they thoroughly disliked. Many would throw away different pieces are report them lost and destroyed. Bone and joint problems, humps, rheumatism were rampant especially among older soldiers.

The development of firearms made full plate increasingly pointless, so soldiers stipped it down to a plate cuirass and an open helmet (for better visibility), resulting in the conquistador look. As penetration capability of firearms improved, even those were thrown out, producing musketeers. Only dragoons kept the cuirass and open helmet because being mounted made the weight less of a problem, while as cavalry, they were expected to engage in sword action.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not so long ago, the Army published the standard load - which amounted to 95 lbs. The soldier had his rifle, 7 magazines, two grenades, and one C-ration meal.

They no longer publish that -- it's gotten too rediculous.

The problems are:

1. There are no real weight savings. Boots today weigh more than boots in WWI. The helmet today weighs more than the WWI "soup plate." The M16A2 weighs almost exactly what the M1903 Springfield weighed. The ammo weighs less, but the soldier carries more of it.

2. There are more line items -- the WWI soldier didn't routinely wear body armor, or carry many of the things the modern soldier needs.

3. The modern company is only half as big as the WWII company -- so when you add in the mass of company equipment and supplies, the load is staggering.

 

[Jeff White]

The weight of the Infantryman's load has remained pretty constant since Roman times. We do get a greatly increased capability for the same weight though.

Controlling the load the soldier carries is a function of the chain of command. Commanders must taylor the load for the mission and keep it to the bare minimum. A good assessment of risk vs benefit has to be made for every piece of equipment carried. Once the minimum load is established the NCOs must ruthlessly enforce it by conducting thorough precombat inspections.

The risk adverse mentality contributes to the overloading of our soldiers. Individual loads should not be set at the three star level, but often they are, when the theater commander dictates that all soldiers in theater will wear/carry a certain number of items of protective equipment. This ties the hands of the actual commander on the ground. What works at the FOB doesn't necessarily work in the hills. The same thing happens with unrealistic movement time schedules as the people in the TOC sometimes forget what the little brown lines on the map mean. A 3 K approach march to an assault position may in fact be much farther then 3 K based on the terrain.

Many civilians get into aquiring kit for whatever SHTF scenario they envision on the theory that it's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. This works if you aren't moving. The first time you're faced with moving all that stuff, you'll be hurting.

If bugging out is your SHTF plan, you need to conduct several full scale rehersals so you can find out what you actually will need and what you won't use.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The weight of the Infantryman's load has remained pretty constant since Roman times. We do get a greatly increased capability for the same weight though.

No, the amount a man can carry has remained pretty constant -- around 50 to 65 lbs. But the modern infantryman's load is much heavier than that.

Controlling the load the soldier carries is a function of the chain of command. Commanders must taylor the load for the mission and keep it to the bare minimum.

Unfortunately, the situation is such that can't be done realistically. A good part of the problem is the ruthless paring of manpower from the company, to the point where you simply can't carry a full load of company equipment along with personal equipment, ammo and supplies.

There's an old saying, "It all rolls downhill" -- rignt on to the company commander. Bean counters make decisions that make their jobs easier, and create problems for company commanders.

A good assessment of risk vs benefit has to be made for every piece of equipment carried. Once the minimum load is established the NCOs must ruthlessly enforce it by conducting thorough precombat inspections.

Yes -- but in the end, the risks are too high. Let's say we set the maximum load at 65 lbs. The mission is a 3 day combat patrol through the mountains. Enemy contact is likely, and we don't want to give away our positions by taking helicopter resupply -- what do you say we should take, and what should we leave behind?

 

[Llywelyn]

Hate to disagree.

Greetings,


I hate to disagree with something that isn't really on the topic. But I am afraid some of your information is not correct. Chainmaille of the that period was not that heavy. heavy, somewhat, but not that heavy. their method of making maille was such that it elimanated most of the wieght and kept the strength. Few people today take the time to build such maille. Its called rivited maille, most people today make butted. to keep the rings from pulling apart it requires heavier wire, which in turn leads to heavier overall weight, thus leading to the misconception that it must have been like that back then.

plate armour while heavier is not heavy be any means, as you have rightly pointed out, the weight is evenly distributed and the whole body takes the weight not just one part. But this includes a full suit of plate. The only overloading problems they would have dealt with would have been tournament plate which was made heavy on purpose.(who wants to die while having fun.) In battle mobility is key. because of the way in which the weight is distributed mobility is very possible. I have a suit of 1350 splinted armour, I use this regularly, I can easily to summersaults in it.(hand have to prove my point)


Most foot soldiers DIDN'T wear full plate, #1 they couldn't afford it(and if they could they could afford a horse too!!) #2 they didn't need it, they needed mobility more. Being able to avoid a blow is far better than letting your armour take it. I think most bone and joint problems in the middle ages were probably due to lack of a proper balanced diet.


Anyway, not saying I am an expert, but I have spent most of my short life studying the middle ages and re-creating how they fought. Hope I don't sound like I am chewing you out or something. Just trying to correct some of the misthoughts that people have about the middle ages.


In Service,
Llywelyn

+1 armoredman

In the dark ages, the chainmail was so heavy and uncomfortably weighing down on the shoulders that typical patrols could only ride for a few hours before they had to rest. One of the reasons for castle-building was to provide a safe place for the knights to take off the chainsuits and recover.

The advent of plate armor improved the situation by redistributing the weight far more evenly, as well as providing a better protection. However, more and more pieces were added to the suit, until the same mobility and overload problems reemerged.

In the late middle ages and early Renaissance, even the foot soldiers were required to march in full plate, which they thoroughly disliked. Many would throw away different pieces are report them lost and destroyed. Bone and joint problems, humps, rheumatism were rampant especially among older soldiers.

The development of firearms made full plate increasingly pointless, so soldiers stipped it down to a plate cuirass and an open helmet (for better visibility), resulting in the conquistador look. As penetration capability of firearms improved, even those were thrown out, producing musketeers. Only dragoons kept the cuirass and open helmet because being mounted made the weight less of a problem, while as cavalry, they were expected to engage in sword action.

 

[Jeff White]

Vern,
I was around when the light Infantry concept was reintroduced in the early 1980s. There were a lot of innovative things done then to reduce the load. Still my load as a rifle platoon sergeant was about 95 pounds. My machine gunners were carrying around 120 pounds and the RTO tipped the scales at 128 when we still had the old AN/PRC-77s w/KY-38 COMSEC devices. This was including company equipment.

We played with caches' of food and water. At one time they even talked about using mules.

I don't think increasing the number of soldiers in a rifle company will reduce the individuals load. The way to decrease the load is to get the beancounters and higher commanders out of the company commander's business when it comes to planning his load.

MSG (ret) Paul Howe speaks about this in his new book, Leadership and Training for the Fight. He relates a story about how his un-named Army SOF unit conducted most of their missions during the 1989 Panama conflict without their body armor because they got into country too late to acclimate to the heat and it wasn't feasable to conduct their operations while taking IVs to remain hydrated. So they decided on their own that they wouldn't wear their body armor. He also mentions other missions where speed and mobility were more important then protection so they only wore their kevlar armor and left the hard plates at home. Commanders in conventional units wouldn't dare make decisons like that. Heck, in most cases the commander at battalion and below isn't even given the option.

There is a constant battle between protecting the soldier from every possible hazard, and being able to effectively accomplish the mission. Take the ACH helmet, it provides better ballistic protection then the Kpot, but it doesn't cover as big an area of the head and neck. Because it doesn't cover as big an area of the head and neck, situational awareness is greatly improved by enhanced visibility and hearing. But since it was fielded, they have done some studies suggesting that the number of head injuries has increased. There are no perfect solutions, everything is a trade off and the system needs to let the commander given the mission make the decisions on his load.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern,
I was around when the light Infantry concept was reintroduced in the early 1980s. There were a lot of innovative things done then to reduce the load. Still my load as a rifle platoon sergeant was about 95 pounds. My machine gunners were carrying around 120 pounds and the RTO tipped the scales at 128 when we still had the old AN/PRC-77s w/KY-38 COMSEC devices. This was including company equipment.

And things have got worse since.

We played with caches' of food and water. At one time they even talked about using mules.

Unfortunately, that made too much sense. The bureaucrats talked it over and the Chief of Transportation (Commandant of the Transportation School) figured it would be too hard. The upshot was, "If you ever really need mules, whoever the unfortunate SOB is who's filling my place at that time will produce them by magic.":banghead:

I

don't think increasing the number of soldiers in a rifle company will reduce the individuals load. The way to decrease the load is to get the beancounters and higher commanders out of the company commander's business when it comes to planning his load.

Imagine you had a real machine gun squad with each company -- enough men to carry gun, accoutrements, and enough ammo for the mission. That's just an example of how more men would help.

MSG (ret) Paul Howe speaks about this in his new book, Leadership and Training for the Fight. He relates a story about how his un-named Army SOF unit conducted most of their missions during the 1989 Panama conflict without their body armor because they got into country too late to acclimate to the heat and it wasn't feasable to conduct their operations while taking IVs to remain hydrated. So they decided on their own that they wouldn't wear their body armor. He also mentions other missions where speed and mobility were more important then protection so they only wore their kevlar armor and left the hard plates at home. Commanders in conventional units wouldn't dare make decisons like that. Heck, in most cases the commander at battalion and below isn't even given the option.

Yep. But the hard problem remains -- what do you leave behind?

There is a constant battle between protecting the soldier from every possible hazard, and being able to effectively accomplish the mission. Take the ACH helmet, it provides better ballistic protection then the Kpot, but it doesn't cover as big an area of the head and neck. Because it doesn't cover as big an area of the head and neck, situational awareness is greatly improved by enhanced visibility and hearing. But since it was fielded, they have done some studies suggesting that the number of head injuries has increased. There are no perfect solutions, everything is a trade off and the system needs to let the commander given the mission make the decisions on his load.

Jeff

I've had some pointed discussions with the "experts" on this -- one surgeon said to me, "do you know how many autopsies I've done on men who would be alive today if they had worn their body armor and helmets?"

And my response was, "How many autopsies have you done on men who were too tired to see a tripwire, or who were killed on a Tuesday by an enemy who got away on Monday because our troops were too exhausted to catch him?"

 

[Jeff White]

Vern,
I would have loved to have machine gun squads, or even 3 man machine gun teams. The J series MTOE cut them back to two.

The biggest increase in the soldiers load has been in personal protective equipment. We've made great strides in being able to protect our soldiers, but we've paid for it in decreased mobility and situational awareness. By the time we get the IBAS all fitted out with the neck protectors, new shoulder protection and side plates, we're over 20 pounds again, before we give the soldier any mission or sustainment load. That's fine if we're going to sit in static positions, or do mounted patrols, but you can't fight on foot like that, not when you add in weapons, ammo, demo, water, radios etc....The fighting load is approaching what used to be considered a sustainment load.

As to what I'd leave behind on the patrol, I'd have to know more about the mission before I could start planning. I can say that if it was only three days, I'd probably go with just two meals a day, stripped down to what the soldier would eat, if there was no or minimal NBC threat, masks and CPOG would be left behind. I'd be heavy on water, ammo and batteries and leave most other stuff behind. Wouldn't carry rolls of wire, but precut lengths or do without phones entirely. One thing I hated was a commander who decided to leave his tripods and T&Es at home making his machine guns big heavy automatic rifles. Yes it cut the load, but it also sure cut into the effectiveness. We did things like only carry sleeping bags for 1/3 of the force if the weather was cool, if it was warm, no sleeping bags, just poncho liners.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern,
I would have loved to have machine gun squads, or even 3 man machine gun teams. The J series MTOE cut them back to two.

My point, exactly. We still have the machine guns, two to a platoon, but no machinegun squads to carry them. That's one way the soldier's combat load has gone up -- because you don't go into combat without machineguns and plenty of ammo.

The biggest increase in the soldiers load has been in personal protective equipment. We've made great strides in being able to protect our soldiers, but we've paid for it in decreased mobility and situational awareness. By the time we get the IBAS all fitted out with the neck protectors, new shoulder protection and side plates, we're over 20 pounds again, before we give the soldier any mission or sustainment load.

Yep -- the vests in Viet Nam didn't weight that much, but they were still a great burden.

That's fine if we're going to sit in static positions, or do mounted patrols, but you can't fight on foot like that, not when you add in weapons, ammo, demo, water, radios etc....The fighting load is approaching what used to be considered a sustainment load.

Absolutely.

As to what I'd leave behind on the patrol, I'd have to know more about the mission before I could start planning. I can say that if it was only three days, I'd probably go with just two meals a day, stripped down to what the soldier would eat, if there was no or minimal NBC threat, masks and CPOG would be left behind. I'd be heavy on water, ammo and batteries and leave most other stuff behind. Wouldn't carry rolls of wire, but precut lengths or do without phones entirely. One thing I hated was a commander who decided to leave his tripods and T&Es at home making his machine guns big heavy automatic rifles. Yes it cut the load, but it also sure cut into the effectiveness.

And soon we won't have tripods, on the grounds that "the troops never carry them, anyway." By and large, machine gunnery has become a lost art.

We did things like only carry sleeping bags for 1/3 of the force if the weather was cool, if it was warm, no sleeping bags, just poncho liners.

Jeff

We did the same in Viet Nam -- and I used to dream about having a mule train.

 

[Jeff White]

The whole idea behind the light division was that it be deployable in 400 C141 sorties. Originally, it was a potent organization with a divison base that stil had an armor and mech battalion (the XM8 Armored Gun system and the LAV). That was the first to go. Then in an effort to futher reduce the burden on the Air Force, the started cutting vehicles out of the already stripped out line battalions. Mortar sections lost thier trucks and we went to a six man mortar section (2 M224 60mm mortars) and everyone in the company humping mortar rounds in addition to their personal load and machine gun ammo. As far as I know the problem of getting the mortar round into the hands of the mortar section was never satisfactorily solved.

Unfortunately, I don't see our forces getting more robust in manpower and technology in the form of John Deere Gator ATVs isn't a perfect solution. We either accept more risk by cutting bown on the body armor or develop Heinlen's powered armor suits.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The whole idea behind the light division was that it be deployable in 400 C141 sorties.

I used to make myself obnoxious around the Infantry School by saying, "If you're going to fly troops halfway around the world, doesn't it make sense to fly them to victory, and not to defeat?"

I think we should design fighting units to fight, not to be convenient to the Air Force.

Originally, it was a potent organization with a divison base that stil had an armor and mech battalion (the XM8 Armored Gun system and the LAV). That was the first to go. Then in an effort to futher reduce the burden on the Air Force, the started cutting vehicles out of the already stripped out line battalions. Mortar sections lost thier trucks and we went to a six man mortar section (2 M224 60mm mortars) and everyone in the company humping mortar rounds in addition to their personal load and machine gun ammo. As far as I know the problem of getting the mortar round into the hands of the mortar section was never satisfactorily solved.

It never will be -- until we get serious about fighting.

Unfortunately, I don't see our forces getting more robust in manpower and technology in the form of John Deere Gator ATVs isn't a perfect solution. We either accept more risk by cutting bown on the body armor or develop Heinlen's powered armor suits.

Jeff

You just said the sad truth -- the American people want to fight wars on the cheap. They won't put up the money, so the combat troops must pay in blood.

 

[Sam]

The whole idea behind the light division was that it be deployable in 400 C141 sorties.

I really loved that part. The max of 141's ever in the inventory was 278 and went down steadily from teh day the day we splattered the first one.
I don't personally remember there ever being more than 230 in service and we never were able to fly them full. Ran out of space before the met weight and had to restrict weight due to structure probs after we streched them.

As for the USAF's burden, we just didn't own enough planes to do what you wanted. I wish we did but the various "mafias" all had their own adgenda. Never came anywhere near the transport projections and never will. No one wants to pay.

I told the CSAF that if the Air Force was really serious about flying that we would own every item of military eqpt that could go higher than I could jump, as opposed to the rest of the DoD having more aircraft than we did. He didn't care for my thoughts on the matter.

Sam

 

[Hardware]

As for the USAF's burden, we just didn't own enough planes to do what you wanted. I wish we did but the various "mafias" all had their own adgenda. Never came anywhere near the transport projections and never will. No one wants to pay.

Sounds like the exact same problem the German military ran into with the Luftwaffe at Stalingrad.

 

[roo_ster]

C141 as your limiting factor to weight/volume? Oh, what luxury!

The FCS program revolves around making everything deployable by X number of C130 aircraft. This has lead to such tactical wonders as the three-vehicle scout platoon...who operate singly on the battlefield.

Not to mention that Uncle Sam hasn't purchased a new C130 in years...& has no plans to buy any more.

 

[DelayedReaction]

I suspect we'll see this kind of problem diminish in the future, at least on a small scale, as human-performance enhancing equipment is more developed. In short, these are exoskeletons designed to take the load away from the soldier, while simultaneously increasing protection and other essential factors.

I find it interesting that the military has 100 pound loads for their soldiers, and ultralight backpackers are capable of going for a week or more using a pack that weighs around 20 pounds max. Obviously soldiers have far greater material requirements than backpackers, but you would think they could make things lighter.

 

[Jeff White]

Civilian backpackers have a much different mission then soldiers do. Outside of some load carriage systems and clothing, they don't have much to offer the military. Most of the weight a soldier carries is ammunition, water, personal protective equipment (body armor, chemical agent protective items), mission essential equipent (few backpackers need to carry halligan tools, crowbars and sledges, bolt cutters and other breaching equipment), communications equipment and the spares for all of it.

Jeff

 

[Devonai]

I'm in the mortar section of my Infantry unit (despite being an 11B) and we're all hoping and praying that they'll let us ditch our two sixties and switch to a couple of 81's. It has been discussed to do so and get two Humvees assigned to the section. We're all for that; 81's are easier to use and more useful, and we'll carry them on the Humvees rather than our backs! Still, a 60mm tube or baseplate is far better than a M240B.

My biggest complaint about weight is that of my ruck alone. I don't mind the IBAs as long as we're wearing them. It's when we cram them into our rucks that my life becomes miserable. The same goes for ammo and water. When in my LBE and on my body I'm fine. I'd much rather be wearing all that stuff than try to put any of it into my ruck.

In basic, the only way I could put my on ruck w/IBA and plates inside (without help) was to sit on the ground, put my arms through the straps, roll over onto my hands and knees and stand up.

MREs get stripped down and go into my trouser pockets. Fortunately I've never had to carry more than two at a time.

So, keeping everything out of my ruck except what must be inside gets it down to 60 pounds. I can live with that.

(Howe) relates a story about how his un-named Army SOF unit conducted most of their missions during the 1989 Panama conflict without their body armor because they got into country too late to acclimate to the heat and it wasn't feasable to conduct their operations while taking IVs to remain hydrated.

I got a 1 liter IV pushed into me four times during basic. A life-long New Englander shouldn't take a Georgia summer lightly.

 

[DelayedReaction]

Civilian backpackers have a much different mission then soldiers do. Outside of some load carriage systems and clothing, they don't have much to offer the military. Most of the weight a soldier carries is ammunition, water, personal protective equipment (body armor, chemical agent protective items), mission essential equipent (few backpackers need to carry halligan tools, crowbars and sledges, bolt cutters and other breaching equipment), communications equipment and the spares for all of it.

Jeff

Very true, which is why I said the material requirements were obviously different. But at the very core of the matter, a soldier needs to get from point A to point B while being properly fed and kept safe from the environment. A pretty common saying amongst backpackers is "Keep an eye on the ounces and the pounds will take care of themselves."

The kind of things I'm talking about:
Having looked at the MRE, it's full of unnecessary packaging. Bags within boxes, really thick plastic, and generally a wasteful system. How many ounces would the army save per ration if they switched to a lighter packaging scheme?

Unless I'm mistaken, a soldier's uniform is cotton. Cotton is a very effective insulator when dry, but holds a horrendous amount of water when wet. Given that soldiers sweat a great deal, how much weight could be saved (dry and wet) by changing to a better fabric for the uniforms?

A soldier needs specific tools, but are those tools designed for the job? For example, instead of a solid steel crowbar or bolt cutters, would something that incorporates carbon fiber into the handle reduce weight while still remaining effective?

Obviously the needs of a solider are vastly different from those of a civilian backpacker, but there are a great deal of similarities as well. If a civilian backpacker can travel comfortably for a week with a pack that weighs no more than 20 pounds, the military should be able to get a soldier down to 60 pounds.

 

[Devonai]

As I said, MREs get stripped down.

Almost everybody ditches the heater and the new drink pouch. From the accessory packet, I get rid of the TP (a roll of Charmin in a Ziplock bag is better and only you or your buddy need carry it for the both of you), the matches (the two books I already have in my ruck will last me years), the coffee (never have time to make it), the sugar (useless calories), the creamer (useless useless), and the gum (which actually improved recently). In other words, I keep the moist towelette.

The food items are removed from the cardboard boxes. Trades are made, and some guys throw out the dairy shakes/apple cider mix/beverage base powder if nobody else wants them. Then whatever's left goes back into the outer pouch. I like to fold it over and reseal it with 100 mph tape. The result is half the size it was when I started.

I don't see how the military could get much more efficient with the packaging. If I want to carry the most food possible in the smallest space then I'd go for the highest calorie items. The least efficient items in that area are the white rice, mashed potatoes, sliced pineapple/peaches, et cetera. The best items are the Powerbar ripoffs, peanut butter and cheese packets, crackers, peanuts, and Combos ripoffs.

As for uniforms, my unit hasn't been issued the new ACU yet so I can only speak for BDUs, but the summer weights are 50% cotton/50% nylon and the winter weights are 70% cotton/30% nylon. I spent enough time in soaking wet summer weights to tell you that the added water weight is inconsequential. I haven't sweat through winter weight BDUs (duh) so I couldn't tell you how much heavier they are when wet, but I don't think they'd be much worse. I'd be much more worried about being wet in a cold environment.

 

[sacp81170a]

Here's link to a study by the Institute of Medicine about a ration to replace MRE's during combat operations:

http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=27334

Seems to me like this is something that should have been addressed long ago.

 

[DelayedReaction]

Devonai, thanks for the information.