I was a grunt with the 4th Inf in Nam in 68-69. We stayed far into the Central Highlands and as a result we carried a ruck of about 85 pounds and climbing the mountins in the Highlands. We had C Rations(3 days worth) which weighed more than the current MRE's.I had 25, 20 round magazines loaded with 18 rounds each,200+ loose rounds in my ruck and had two bandoliers about my waist plus the one in the 16 and grenades in my pocket of the jungle fatiques. Each man carried 200 rounds for the 60.Add the claymore,grenades,flares,5 quats of water and if an 81 crew was with us, a couple of 81 rounds. There were other items on top of this. My personal gear was a small New Testament(still have)a small 126 camera,writing pad and some envelopes.I am 58 now and have damaged neck vetabrae,lower back, and knees. Yes, we gripped about it but March 5th and 6th ,1969 we went through most of it and had to be re suppled by a chopper pushing out supplies while it flew fast and low. Byron D Co,3/8th Inf,4th Inf Div
A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Mobility
- Thread starter NMshooter
- Start date
- Status
Dick Dart
Member
My Two cents
As long as there are soldiers their will be complaints about their equipment. I too am a product of the early Light Infantry inception into the Army and lived by the "Light Infantry is a couple of words, not a concept". I said that because I was tired of humping close to my body weight around Ft. Benning and later Ft. Drum. I am at 20 years in the service now and I have seen a marked improvement over the equipment our soldiers carry. The load bearing equipment and ruck's have changed greatly since the Alice Pack and LBE. The BDU's are also more comfortable and dry quicker than the early heavyweight BDU's with the old Elvis collars. I wouldn't get too excited about the ACU's yet. A recent study shows that when they treated the material to make it more wrinkle resistant they also made it less fire retardant.
They package MRE's the way they do to ensure the soldier has a set number of calories (empty or otherwise) to sustain them during field and combat operations. The multi layers of packaging are there to ensure the goods reach the soldier in edible condition after traveling through the military re-supply system (and you thought airport baggage handlers were rough). The multitude of breaching equipment mentioned earlier is a recent addition for Big Army soldiers. In the 80's and 90's, us common grunts conducted breaching with C4 and an e-tool. Even today, that type of equipment is used during specific operations and not always a part of the basic kit (or else it is kept on the vehicles) I'm sure lighter weight materials could be used, but then a $50.00 piece of kit becomes a $200.00 piece of kit. Being a soldier I am not one to skimp of the cost of my equipment, but with the budget as it is and cost cuts around the corner I think I would rather have the heavy, cheaper hoolie and spend the money on better, more effective armor.
I think it's safe to assume that no matter who light-weight we make out equipment, the need will always be there to add more to the load this increasing the overall weight and discomfort of soldiers. Anyway, thanks for letting me rant.
As long as there are soldiers their will be complaints about their equipment. I too am a product of the early Light Infantry inception into the Army and lived by the "Light Infantry is a couple of words, not a concept". I said that because I was tired of humping close to my body weight around Ft. Benning and later Ft. Drum. I am at 20 years in the service now and I have seen a marked improvement over the equipment our soldiers carry. The load bearing equipment and ruck's have changed greatly since the Alice Pack and LBE. The BDU's are also more comfortable and dry quicker than the early heavyweight BDU's with the old Elvis collars. I wouldn't get too excited about the ACU's yet. A recent study shows that when they treated the material to make it more wrinkle resistant they also made it less fire retardant.
They package MRE's the way they do to ensure the soldier has a set number of calories (empty or otherwise) to sustain them during field and combat operations. The multi layers of packaging are there to ensure the goods reach the soldier in edible condition after traveling through the military re-supply system (and you thought airport baggage handlers were rough). The multitude of breaching equipment mentioned earlier is a recent addition for Big Army soldiers. In the 80's and 90's, us common grunts conducted breaching with C4 and an e-tool. Even today, that type of equipment is used during specific operations and not always a part of the basic kit (or else it is kept on the vehicles) I'm sure lighter weight materials could be used, but then a $50.00 piece of kit becomes a $200.00 piece of kit. Being a soldier I am not one to skimp of the cost of my equipment, but with the budget as it is and cost cuts around the corner I think I would rather have the heavy, cheaper hoolie and spend the money on better, more effective armor.
I think it's safe to assume that no matter who light-weight we make out equipment, the need will always be there to add more to the load this increasing the overall weight and discomfort of soldiers. Anyway, thanks for letting me rant.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I happen to be one of those backpackers (and a retired infantryman, to boot.) I just finished a 3 day hike with a 15-lb pack (and the temps got down to freezing at night, and one night it rained.)
But -- I didn't have an M16A2 rifle, with 270 rounds of ammo in magazines, a spare banolier, two frag grenades, a smoke grenade, a helmet, body armor, protective mask and hood, chemical protective suit, with overboots and gauntlets, night vision goggles, claymore mine, radio, spare batteries for everything, extra belt for the machine gun, and so on.
If I had, I'd be carrying close to 100 lbs.
carebear
Member
Vern's got it right.
Throw in cold weather equipment for week-long patrols in northern Indian country and the ounces turn into pounds at the cyclic rate.
When you don't have guaranteed resupply; if you didn't brung it, you don't have it. That means redundant radios, batteries and antennae kits (comm failure is mission failure).
That means chow for a week of humping 100+ pounds each and fuel and stoves for making water from snow and ice.
What you end up with is a delicate balance between enough safety equipment to ensure mere survival for the personnel and all the gear you actually need to complete the mission. Throw in enough ammo to give you a realistic chance of surviving contact and getting away (while loaded down with all that trash), at which point you have to choose between trying to complete the mission in an actively hostile environment or going to your E&E plan. (E&E means you at least get to start burning SOME heavy things)
"Go fast, go light" camping can help with some gear but mission accomplishment is a remorseless mistress where weight is concerned.
Throw in cold weather equipment for week-long patrols in northern Indian country and the ounces turn into pounds at the cyclic rate.
When you don't have guaranteed resupply; if you didn't brung it, you don't have it. That means redundant radios, batteries and antennae kits (comm failure is mission failure).
That means chow for a week of humping 100+ pounds each and fuel and stoves for making water from snow and ice.
What you end up with is a delicate balance between enough safety equipment to ensure mere survival for the personnel and all the gear you actually need to complete the mission. Throw in enough ammo to give you a realistic chance of surviving contact and getting away (while loaded down with all that trash), at which point you have to choose between trying to complete the mission in an actively hostile environment or going to your E&E plan. (E&E means you at least get to start burning SOME heavy things)
"Go fast, go light" camping can help with some gear but mission accomplishment is a remorseless mistress where weight is concerned.
You poor Ground pounding Crunchy ass Earth Pigs.....
That's Why I spent the first 19 years of my Career on Tanks.... The only thing I carried was 1911 or an M9 in a shouder holster with a couple of spare mags and my Bino's around my necki and a pocket full of Cigars...
But don't worry, I got paid back in spades when my heavy mech Bde turned to light Infantry brigade and I spent the last 2 years a sa 11Boo.
I got say, it was fun trying to load up my Lg Alice with everything we had in our TACSOP along with any "Luxury" items which are far and few for a grunt.
I think the reason the Modern Infantry man still carries to much is just the base line fact that you will always be alone as some point and time in an operation and you have to depend on just what you brought to the party.
Good example is Anaconda. They relied heavily on Helicopters for Tac Air and resupply, but yet due to weather and terrain, those poor bastards still had to hump everything in and be on their own for long periods of time.
Since a crew served weapon provides 80% of a Plts Firepeower, you need to haul alot of 7.62MM, etc
I don't see it getting any lighter in the forceable future unless your a Mechanized or Motorized Grunt. Once you off the beaten path and the option of having vehicles is out, it's going on your back..bottom line..
That's Why I spent the first 19 years of my Career on Tanks.... The only thing I carried was 1911 or an M9 in a shouder holster with a couple of spare mags and my Bino's around my necki and a pocket full of Cigars...
But don't worry, I got paid back in spades when my heavy mech Bde turned to light Infantry brigade and I spent the last 2 years a sa 11Boo.
I got say, it was fun trying to load up my Lg Alice with everything we had in our TACSOP along with any "Luxury" items which are far and few for a grunt.
I think the reason the Modern Infantry man still carries to much is just the base line fact that you will always be alone as some point and time in an operation and you have to depend on just what you brought to the party.
Good example is Anaconda. They relied heavily on Helicopters for Tac Air and resupply, but yet due to weather and terrain, those poor bastards still had to hump everything in and be on their own for long periods of time.
Since a crew served weapon provides 80% of a Plts Firepeower, you need to haul alot of 7.62MM, etc
I don't see it getting any lighter in the forceable future unless your a Mechanized or Motorized Grunt. Once you off the beaten path and the option of having vehicles is out, it's going on your back..bottom line..
Thin Black Line
Member
Devonai,
Hold onto the MRE toilet paper when you deploy to Iraq --you'll need it
in Kuwait.
Most people strip down their IBA --no collar or groin panels-- who aren't
turret gunners or in other high-risk areas. Yes, everyone has neck, back,
knee problems who had to walk around in it for a year. The VA needs
to hire chiropractors to take care of all of us! {cracks necks and
continues typing}
As far as pack loads, you'll only walk "short" distance as most of it will be
transported. But, yes, we are given way too much junk we don't use.
I usually traveled around wearing the kevlar, IBA, weapons, and ammo.
My commo, water, personal GPS and CLS were in all in a single pack nearby
in a vehicle on missions. My other three duffle bags were stuffed below
my bunk for most of my deployment. I will use my FOURTH duffle bag full
of RFI items more for hunting and hiking this winter than I ever did in Iraq.
The RFI black fleece jacket is really nice for sweeping snow off the deck in
winter....I might have worn it to the shower point a few times in chilly
nights in northern iraq.
The new ACUs are crap. I was leaving as the new people were coming in
with them. They're too light weight and are poorly constructed. Seams
were tearing out and the fabric was too worn after only two months. People
on their 2nd OIF tour are having their old DCUs mailed to them!
I liked the ACU pattern itself and it seemed to blend well with the palm
groves. Better tailoring is needed, though. I think a congressman is
needed to put some light on the issue (and some heat on the supplier).
Hold onto the MRE toilet paper when you deploy to Iraq --you'll need it
in Kuwait.
Most people strip down their IBA --no collar or groin panels-- who aren't
turret gunners or in other high-risk areas. Yes, everyone has neck, back,
knee problems who had to walk around in it for a year. The VA needs
to hire chiropractors to take care of all of us! {cracks necks and
continues typing}
As far as pack loads, you'll only walk "short" distance as most of it will be
transported. But, yes, we are given way too much junk we don't use.
I usually traveled around wearing the kevlar, IBA, weapons, and ammo.
My commo, water, personal GPS and CLS were in all in a single pack nearby
in a vehicle on missions. My other three duffle bags were stuffed below
my bunk for most of my deployment. I will use my FOURTH duffle bag full
of RFI items more for hunting and hiking this winter than I ever did in Iraq.
The RFI black fleece jacket is really nice for sweeping snow off the deck in
winter....I might have worn it to the shower point a few times in chilly
nights in northern iraq.
The new ACUs are crap. I was leaving as the new people were coming in
with them. They're too light weight and are poorly constructed. Seams
were tearing out and the fabric was too worn after only two months. People
on their 2nd OIF tour are having their old DCUs mailed to them!
I liked the ACU pattern itself and it seemed to blend well with the palm
groves. Better tailoring is needed, though. I think a congressman is
needed to put some light on the issue (and some heat on the supplier).
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
NMshooter said:
As alluded to already, the loads should correspond with the tasks needing to be performed and ideally should not interfere with those tasks.
The problem, however, is that unless slated with specific objectives, the soldiers must carry their heavy loads so as to have what they need for whatever type of situation materializes. As such, the individual soldier can remain self sufficient for longer periods of time without resupply.
Of course, when you have soldiers working out of a specific base or location, they need not carry everything with them. So you don't see most of the American soldiers in Bagdad wearing full loads. They don't need to. They are within a few miles of needed resupply and other support.
So considering the limitations of the force and the available budget is there anything that can be done to increase the resupply capability of units in the field?
Or is the US military doing things as well as they can be done at this time?
Obviously more helicopters would be nice, but those are expensive, and I suspect that the ones currently in service are in need of a lot of maintenance and some replacement. Would more trucks be helpful, or even feasible?
Not to mention the limitations of the Air Force and Navy in getting stuff to the AOR in the first place.
In the past pack animals and locally hired porters have been used by most armies (and would appear to still be in use in some countries), is this simply too un-PC to even consider?
Or is the US military doing things as well as they can be done at this time?
Obviously more helicopters would be nice, but those are expensive, and I suspect that the ones currently in service are in need of a lot of maintenance and some replacement. Would more trucks be helpful, or even feasible?
Not to mention the limitations of the Air Force and Navy in getting stuff to the AOR in the first place.
In the past pack animals and locally hired porters have been used by most armies (and would appear to still be in use in some countries), is this simply too un-PC to even consider?
Teufelhunden
Member
A little known trick outside of commo circles: THe creamer is actually useful as a signalling device if modern comm goes down. Upend the packet about 2 or 3 feet over a lit flame and you'll get a flash of flame almost 4 feet tall out of it. It's simply a combustible powder--you just have to make sure you get the powder far enough away that it's actually in a cloud by the time it hits the flame.
-Teuf
Thin Black Line
Member
NMshooter said:
More properly equipped vehicles (air and ground) are always needed.
There could be the money to do this, but apparently it's felt that some
soldiers need more comfy places to sleep while training in CONUS.
Could $230 Million be used to buy more armored vehicles and helis
for combat?
The only thing "limiting" the AF in Iraq right now are their 4-month deployments.
There could be an IED hidden inside a live mule
In all seriousness, I don't want the local porters anywhere near my gear.
The Air Force is limited by the lack of airframes. They do not have enough transport aircraft to meet all of the air mobility needs. But they are still pouring billions into new fighter aircraft.
You can't solve this probelm with technology. Each new system you bring online adds to the logistical burden.
Jeff
While the Imperial German Army was able to march up to 40 km/day in the initial stages of WW1 the infantrymen doing the marching were not carrying or wearing anything other than uniforms and boots, and taking turns carrying rifles.
All the gear was carried in horse drawn wagons.
Sometimes I wonder how much we have really advanced...
All the gear was carried in horse drawn wagons.
Sometimes I wonder how much we have really advanced...
Vern Humphrey
Member
NMshooter said:While the Imperial German Army was able to march up to 40 km/day in the initial stages of WW1 the infantrymen doing the marching were not carrying or wearing anything other than uniforms and boots, and taking turns carrying rifles.
All the gear was carried in horse drawn wagons.
Sometimes I wonder how much we have really advanced...
Not far. When I was a company commander in Viet Nam, I'd have given a year's pay for a mule train for my company.
One thing hasn't been mentioned yet - at least not in tactical detail. While the loads an individual is carrying haven't been reduced over the years (and, as pointed out have actually grown), the technology behind load bearing equipment has grown a lot. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that just to due LBE it's easier to carry 240lbs than it was 50 years ago, but it is easier to configure and drop when necessary.
Today's infantryman can drop all, some, or any weird combination of gear in a very small instant. This is a huge difference compared to the LBE used in WWII and even Vietnam. This allows for some tactical flexibility that wasn't there in the past.
Today's infantryman can drop all, some, or any weird combination of gear in a very small instant. This is a huge difference compared to the LBE used in WWII and even Vietnam. This allows for some tactical flexibility that wasn't there in the past.
Vern Humphrey
Member
As one who still knows how to make up a horseshoe roll -- and remembers what it was like carrying them, I can agree. The modern Army has better LBE, boots and so on.
Still, a pack mule would be nice.
NMshooter said:
Not long ago I read an article in Airman's Magazine, detailing how several units in Afganistan have obtained and are using mules. I believe that they hired a local handler along with the mules.
The airforce also has a mounted unit and a boat down in florida.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
It never failed to amuse me just as to why the Army "management" always insisted on the soldier carrying so much of a load. I watched soldiers virtualy stagger with over 150 lbs of what the british calls "kit". I was a firm believer of the technology of a Hummwv myself
Vern Humphrey
Member
U.S.SFC_RET said:It never failed to amuse me just as to why the Army "management" always insisted on the soldier carrying so much of a load. I watched soldiers virtualy stagger with over 150 lbs of what the british calls "kit". I was a firm believer of the technology of a Hummwv myself
HWMMWVs can't go everywhere -- certainly not everywhere infantry needs to go (even tanks dare not go where infantry goes.)
The equipment is needed -- the challenge is to figure out what you need most for a mission, and how much risk you're willing to accept. I was doing a project a few years back that took me to all the Maneuver Training Centers, to do detailed tactical analyses.
At the JRTC, a unit of the 10th Mountain Division was hit by a chemical attack. Their masks, hoods, overgarments, overboots and gauntlets were in their duffle bags, stacked neatly near the company headquarters -- each duffle bag with a padlock on it.
Now, we haven't been hit with a chemical attack in a long time -- but if this had been real, these troops would have died to the last man.
The cloud drifted across the battalion, hitting each company in turn. I went back to the TOC and talked to the operations officer, who was tearing his hair out trying to figure out what was happening. The conversation went like this:
Me: You got a call from A Company about gas, right?
Him: Yessir.
Me: And now you can't contact any of the companies, right?
Him: Yessir.
Me: What does that tell you?
Him: Ahhh . . .
Me: I advise you to go to MOPP 4 and prepare to receive cavalry.
Ah yes, FCS, the program that's determined to prove electons are more deadly then steel. Just another program designed to lose soldiers while transferring money from the personnel side to the big companies in the military/industrial complex. Yep and it's even been validated, against a 5th rate army whose battle plan was to drop their uniforms and fade into the population and fight an insurgency.
The tactical internet doesn't work (just ask the soldiers on the ground who are saddled with this POS) and it's not likely to work in the immediate future. For an idea of how this stuff works against an enemy that fights back, take a look at the AARs from the 4th ID's NTC rotations. Vern is right, there is no technological solution to this problem. Commanders have to be willing to assume some risk when planning the load ther soldiers carry. Unfortunately, the commander of the unit in Vern's story took that risk and lost. Was it the right call and the commander was just unlucky? I didn't see his intelligence so I don't know. Everything is a trade off. If there had been no chemical attack, the commander would have been praised for making his soldiers more combat effective by having the courage to reduce their load.
More technology in the form of HMMWVs or John Deere Gators means more load. More fuel, maintenance people and PLL. Which is why the TOE Gods at TRADOC keep lining those things off. Sooner or later they are going to have to realize you can only cut back so far.
Jeff
ghost squire
member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 339
To be fair about this specific subject, the machinegun has become, relative to modern weaponry in conjunction with modern American training, far less powerful.
What I mean by this is, with the volume of fire able to be put out with modern weapons, the machinegun has become relatively slightly less useful. Also machineguns are slightly lighter in general then before.
BUT most of all, is the fact that in WW1 and WW2, only 15-20 percent of US riflemen would fire at the enemy (because of psychological reasons), wheras near 100 percent of machinegunners would fire at the enemy because of the peer pressure of the machinegun squad.
Nowadays firing rates are above 95 percent for riflemen in the US Army. They had steadily gone up because of improvements in training, conditioning and perhaps even propaganda.
So while I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I feel that I should point out that in most situations machineguns no longer dominate the battlefield so one sidedly as they did before. So now I think you can see it from a bean counters view, that in their ignorance they would think that this would warrant burdening one or two men with more weight.
Ghost Squire,
What Infantry experience have you had? The machine gun is still the main firepower of a rifle platoon. It doesn't matter that we now have near 100% firing rates. And Vern will most likely pop in here any time to tell you that in his experience, Marshal was full of it when he came up with those numbers. That only a small percent of riflemen fired their weapons in combat has always been a controversial bit of information.
Actually you are wrong in that the machine gun is lighter. The M240 is heavier then the M60. We also have added things like the M145 MGO (machine gun optic) and AN/PVS-4 to our machine gun teams load. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I would bet that by the time you add in the optics and NODs that we're approaching the same weight as a WWII machine gun crew had with a Browning M1919A4. Don't forget your two man MG crew has to carry the M240 (approx 26 lbs), M122 Tripod, T&E mechanism, spare barrel & tools, M145 MGO, AN/PVS-4 & mount and ammunition (7.62 linked is around 8 pounds per 100 rounds). This is on top of their uniform, body armor, JLIST, protective mask, personal weapons and ammunition (M9s), personal NODs, most likely one of them gets an ICOM PRR (personal role radio), plus their sustainment load.
Yes you spread 7.62 linked out among the platoon, but then you have the problem of getting to the machine gunners under fire.
Let me assure you that even though we're not in the trenches of WWI, the machine gun still dominates the battlefield. Perhaps you want to to maneuver across the last 100 meters of open ground from the assault position to the obj with only M16s and M4s in the SBF position. I certainly don't. Perhaps you want to sit in your defensive position while the enemy is attacking without your platoon's two machine guns interlocking their final protective fires to your front as the last defense before the dismounted enemy gets in among your fighting postions....I don't. Perhaps you'd like to man a checkpoint in Iraq or Afghanistan and try to stop a VBIED with rifle fire....Not me. The machine gun is still the rifle platoon's main weapon.
Jeff
What Infantry experience have you had? The machine gun is still the main firepower of a rifle platoon. It doesn't matter that we now have near 100% firing rates. And Vern will most likely pop in here any time to tell you that in his experience, Marshal was full of it when he came up with those numbers. That only a small percent of riflemen fired their weapons in combat has always been a controversial bit of information.
Actually you are wrong in that the machine gun is lighter. The M240 is heavier then the M60. We also have added things like the M145 MGO (machine gun optic) and AN/PVS-4 to our machine gun teams load. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I would bet that by the time you add in the optics and NODs that we're approaching the same weight as a WWII machine gun crew had with a Browning M1919A4. Don't forget your two man MG crew has to carry the M240 (approx 26 lbs), M122 Tripod, T&E mechanism, spare barrel & tools, M145 MGO, AN/PVS-4 & mount and ammunition (7.62 linked is around 8 pounds per 100 rounds). This is on top of their uniform, body armor, JLIST, protective mask, personal weapons and ammunition (M9s), personal NODs, most likely one of them gets an ICOM PRR (personal role radio), plus their sustainment load.
Yes you spread 7.62 linked out among the platoon, but then you have the problem of getting to the machine gunners under fire.
Let me assure you that even though we're not in the trenches of WWI, the machine gun still dominates the battlefield. Perhaps you want to to maneuver across the last 100 meters of open ground from the assault position to the obj with only M16s and M4s in the SBF position. I certainly don't. Perhaps you want to sit in your defensive position while the enemy is attacking without your platoon's two machine guns interlocking their final protective fires to your front as the last defense before the dismounted enemy gets in among your fighting postions....I don't. Perhaps you'd like to man a checkpoint in Iraq or Afghanistan and try to stop a VBIED with rifle fire....Not me. The machine gun is still the rifle platoon's main weapon.
Jeff
Thin Black Line
Member
You're right, the 240 is heavier. Most of the 240s in Iraq are vehicle
mounted. Anyone dismounted is usually carrying the SAW.
mounted. Anyone dismounted is usually carrying the SAW.
HI express
Member
Deplaning
My nephew is in the 101st Airborne on his 2nd tour to the big sandbox and he found in addition to humping his ruck, when you do your "short" drops out of the helicopters, sometimes either the ground is "soft" or the drop is farther than the pilot estimates, you can screw up your ankles, knees, and back when you hit the ground. He's not complaining just telling me his adventures in paradise.
My nephew is in the 101st Airborne on his 2nd tour to the big sandbox and he found in addition to humping his ruck, when you do your "short" drops out of the helicopters, sometimes either the ground is "soft" or the drop is farther than the pilot estimates, you can screw up your ankles, knees, and back when you hit the ground. He's not complaining just telling me his adventures in paradise.
ghost squire
member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 339
Hmm I had no idea that an M240 gunner has to carry all that extra stuff. I was in fact referring to its weight in comparison to a WW2/WW1 machinegun. Which I now see is approximately the same as what they are carrying now, so I learned something.
None at all. But I trust his studies, and unless you show me evidence that shows he was wrong, I will continue to trust them.
Thats one of those situations I was talking about. But to be fair, how often does that happen nowadays. Maybe if we fought Iran that would become far more useful.
The super low recoil of the wonderful .223 system should allow fully automatic suppressing fire. In all seriousness though, are you Vietnam era or Iraq 2 era? I'm just curious.
I don't really understand what you're trying to convince me of. I know the machinegun is a useful tool in our arsenal. Nevertheless it is less powerful on the battlefield now compared to WW 1 and WW 2. My point being from a bean counters convoluted view, they are less useful and therefore deserve less soldiers to carry them. These are the same people who give us the Stryker. I never said I agreed with this view of loading off more weight onto less soldiers.
- Status
