Combat load carried by infantry
-
This reminds me of my SAFINCO's and operational days. Endless amount of walking to contact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HblwE0Opgfc
How many of you think you can handle the combat load and distance covered by this contemporary infantry? Foot patrolling is bread and butter of all foot soldier. That's how you contact the enemy and dominate the ground.
Mechanization is the right direction to go in fast-moving battles but don't forgo your fitness & endurance for there will always be opportunities to dismount to do some dirty works. -
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,106567,00.html
-
infantry aka freedom fighter will be here soon.
-
so heavy..
-
Thats a very good series of videos though. Really shows what these go through out there.
-
It is not a full load. They are operating from a secure base where they have their main supplies. The packs that some of them are carrying will be mission related equipment.
But that's how modern warfare and well equipped forces will be in the future. Less long distance humping with full load ( i.e. with spare clothing, water, rations for more days). You will have battle wagons ( i.e. IFV or AFV) to carry some, plus with good logistics planning, you will have secure areas to operate and be supplied from. -
I think we have to bear in mind the asymmetrical nature of recent battles/wars fought by Uncle Sam in recent years. They may not be a good reference to base our strategic thinking on. In all instances, Uncle Sam enjoyed absolute superiority in air dominance, fire-power, logistic, mobility and etc. They have the means to secure permanent firebases to launch rapid strikes from. Any counter-attack will be met by lightning fast counter strike. They were baiting the insurgents to show themselves. In one instance, Somalia, they were bested by inferior forces.Originally posted by specfore:It is not a full load. They are operating from a secure base where they have their main supplies. The packs that some of them are carrying will be mission related equipment.
But that's how modern warfare and well equipped forces will be in the future. Less long distance humping with full load ( i.e. with spare clothing, water, rations for more days). You will have battle wagons ( i.e. IFV or AFV) to carry some, plus with good logistics planning, you will have secure areas to operate and be supplied from.
In our case, we do not enjoy absolute superiority in all critical spectrums of battle play. We will never be able to fight like Uncle Sam do now and in the past. I suspect we have and will continue to evolve revolutionary war strategies that are unique to our circumstances like the Israelis did and now.
I think humping is still necessary and has to be stressed/mantained as part of combat fitness proficiency Just keep the load down to the essential mission-related items so that the combat efficiency of foot soldier is not compromise prematurely. Don't rely too much on IFV/AFV. -
combat load for recce (my time was a few years ago only, not the load of 20 years ago)
Heaviest is the R2 load:
Field Pack:
7 standard field packs (with ET blade) (~4kg? Not sure)
1 * 940 signal set with battery (10kg)
1 * 940 signal set accessories (~1kg+)
1 * 940 battery (~1kg)
1 * 1.5 litre bottle (1.5kg)
SBO:
Standard with 2L water + 1 * smoke grenade
In war, will need to carry 3 additional magazines of rounds I think.
Food: 3 days ration
Weapon: Carbine (Now is SAR21)
Cannot remember if I have forgotten anything else... -
aiyo...can dun reveal anything more than infantry soldier's load?
normal infantry is 9-mag + 2 HE + 1 Smoke + Water bottle.
SAW gunner has more mags... -
if the mission requires 300% batteries, put one in the jeep, you still need to carry 200%. tt's the shitty thing...Originally posted by eagle:combat load for recce (my time was a few years ago only, not the load of 20 years ago)
Heaviest is the R2 load:
Field Pack:
7 standard field packs (with ET blade) (~4kg? Not sure)
1 * 940 signal set with battery (10kg)
1 * 940 signal set accessories (~1kg+)
1 * 940 battery (~1kg)
1 * 1.5 litre bottle (1.5kg)
SBO:
Standard with 2L water + 1 * smoke grenade
In war, will need to carry 3 additional magazines of rounds I think.
Food: 3 days ration
Weapon: Carbine (Now is SAR21)
Cannot remember if I have forgotten anything else... -
the load i carried in field camp is nth compared to wad u guys carry man, respect
-
new load out for 3G soldier more powerful...hahaha
-
yah....my LBV fully loaded minus mag already abit
-
akan datang vests with inserts! what happened to frag grenade and ammo?Originally posted by eagle:combat load for recce (my time was a few years ago only, not the load of 20 years ago)
Heaviest is the R2 load:
Field Pack:
7 standard field packs (with ET blade) (~4kg? Not sure)
1 * 940 signal set with battery (10kg)
1 * 940 signal set accessories (~1kg+)
1 * 940 battery (~1kg)
1 * 1.5 litre bottle (1.5kg)
SBO:
Standard with 2L water + 1 * smoke grenade
In war, will need to carry 3 additional magazines of rounds I think.
Food: 3 days ration
Weapon: Carbine (Now is SAR21)
Cannot remember if I have forgotten anything else... -
I think it's quite standard that the average infantry will carry between 20-35kg worth of gear on a march and in an area of operation.
From the hoplites of Greece to the Leigons of Rome to the Line infantry men of Napoleon to the SAF infantry man.
In actually assault and fighting the load drops to around 10-15kg.
Surprisingly this hasn't changed much. -
was it 180 rounds?Originally posted by specialOps:aiyo...can dun reveal anything more than infantry soldier's load?
normal infantry is 9-mag + 2 HE + 1 Smoke + Water bottle.
SAW gunner has more mags...
or 270 rounds? -
I'll be lucky if they give me a full mag to defend myself. =(Originally posted by Rockhound:was it 180 rounds?
or 270 rounds? -
If memory don't fail me, 180 rds is 1 contact rate but infantry carry 1.5 contact rate during op till replenishment.Originally posted by Rockhound:was it 180 rounds?
or 270 rounds? -
how many kg?15 to 20?lol...
-
I find it strange that you all would find the loads mentioned above to be "extreme" by our standards ... or has everyone here been "kenging" when going outfield?
I regularly carried loads of more than 25kg as my fighting load (or in SAF term, Skeletal Battle Order). Breakdown of the loadout ...
- Medics Load 12~13kg
- "Bra" + fanny pack ~10kg (Consisting of 4L water, asstd. SAF Stuff, 24hr Rations, ET, book, snacks)
- Rifle 4.5kg
Instead of lightening my load, I tended to just pile on stuff as I worked on the principle of train hard. So the typical figure tended to approach 30kg or half my body weight. In FBO, my load approached 40~45kg for a 72hr ops. On some occassions when we carried simulated war loads (the much hated blue magazines), you can add another 8kgs to the above.
In case you're thinking I'm walking behind the formation, taking my own sweet time ... I carried the same 30kg load as part of the Battalion Recce Team, a rather quaint invention of our CO. The BtRT consists of 2 3SGs, 2 SAWs, 2 M203s, 2 LAWs and a medic (me). Our task is to act as the pathfinding point for the Battalion following the trail left by our Battalion Scouts. This frees up more Scouts for actual recce instead of them having to backtrack to lead us into the FUP. Because the BRT races ahead of the main formation and backtracks where necessary, I cover up to 10kms at a fast clip before rejoining my platoon for the assault and follow on ...
I can remember many instances in my active and reserve times where we've carried 30~40kg (70~90lbs) loads consistently over many days and long distances.
So ... NO, I don't think those guys are carrying a very big load, especially not when you consider that they are bigger than us Asians. Their load as a percentage of their body weight is comparable to what we're carrying ... or at least what I carried. -
This may little bit side track.
What weapons do a section have?
In 1998,there are 7 men in a section.
They had:2 SAW,ULTIMAX 100
5 M16 replaced by SAR 21
2 M203 replaced by SAR 21
2 LAW . -
I think I am not wrong to say that you are one of the fittest and meanest guy in your battalion. Breeze through and earn gold standard for your IPPT? chicken feet, right? Can you disclose your body weight and height? Just trying to get some objective perspective here for comparison purposeOriginally posted by kotay:I find it strange that you all would find the loads mentioned above to be "extreme" by our standards ... or has everyone here been "kenging" when going outfield?
I regularly carried loads of more than 25kg as my fighting load (or in SAF term, Skeletal Battle Order). Breakdown of the loadout ...
- Medics Load 12~13kg
- "Bra" + fanny pack ~10kg (Consisting of 4L water, asstd. SAF Stuff, 24hr Rations, ET, book, snacks)
- Rifle 4.5kg
Instead of lightening my load, I tended to just pile on stuff as I worked on the principle of train hard. So the typical figure tended to approach 30kg or half my body weight. In FBO, my load approached 40~45kg for a 72hr ops. On some occassions when we carried simulated war loads (the much hated blue magazines), you can add another 8kgs to the above.
In case you're thinking I'm walking behind the formation, taking my own sweet time ... I carried the same 30kg load as part of the Battalion Recce Team, a rather quaint invention of our CO. The BtRT consists of 2 3SGs, 2 SAWs, 2 M203s, 2 LAWs and a medic (me). Our task is to act as the pathfinding point for the Battalion following the trail left by our Battalion Scouts. This frees up more Scouts for actual recce instead of them having to backtrack to lead us into the FUP. Because the BRT races ahead of the main formation and backtracks where necessary, I cover up to 10kms at a fast clip before rejoining my platoon for the assault and follow on ...
I can remember many instances in my active and reserve times where we've carried 30~40kg (70~90lbs) loads consistently over many days and long distances.
So ... NO, I don't think those guys are carrying a very big load, especially not when you consider that they are bigger than us Asians. Their load as a percentage of their body weight is comparable to what we're carrying ... or at least what I carried.
An armour is only as strong as it's weakest link. No point for you to achieve your sub-mission while the rest of your battalion straggle along your trail with their combat load, ye?
There is a catch-22 issue here. Granted, we should train the way we want to fight or we will not fight that way at all. Yet, we should preserve our body in the course of tough training. So many regular commando officers and NCO were relegated to Guards and less demanding vocation/appointment/unit after a certain age because they abuse their bodies beyond their bodies' abilities to recuperate. Having undergone so many expensive training courses, I find it illogical that they are not deployable when their trained skills are required. There is a Chinese saying: "Rear soldiers for a thousand day employ them for a single day". -
Originally posted by aikchongtan:
Hardly. I'm in the middle band of my unit fitness curve.
I think I am not wrong to say that you are one of the fittest and meanest guy in your battalion. Breeze through and earn gold standard for your IPPT? chicken feet, right? Can you disclose your body weight and height? Just trying to get some objective perspective here for comparison purpose
The units I've been in have all been very fit. Even the medics. I've heard lots of stories of f**ked up medics but other than in Tekong, I have not come across any in my units.
If it helps, I'm 62kg and 178cm ... more beanpole than buff.An armour is only as strong as it's weakest link. No point for you to achieve your sub-mission while the rest of your battalion straggle along your trail with their combat load, ye?
Yes and No. There will always be stragglers in any unit ... someone has to come last after all
However, if these under-achievers form a small minority rather than the majority, their performance (or lack of) doesn't really affect the formation's mission capability at all. That's my experience anyway. The majority will help or drag the stragglers along ...
Most SAF soldiers I've seen carry quite a load ... but I have also seen some bad apples going into the field with only 1 water bottle and flat SBOs ... those were the ones that I was alluding to with my "keng" comment.There is a catch-22 issue here. Granted, we should train the way we want to fight or we will not fight that way at all. Yet, we should preserve our body in the course of tough training. So many regular commando officers and NCO were relegated to Guards and less demanding vocation/appointment/unit after a certain age because they abuse their bodies beyond their bodies' abilities to recuperate. Having undergone so many expensive training courses, I find it illogical that they are not deployable when their trained skills are required. There is a Chinese saying: "Rear soldiers for a thousand day employ them for a single day".
And therein lie the rub ... being in a Guards unit, we see a lot of these "excess to requirements" Cdos attached to us. Sure they may have been technically over-qualified for the unit but they do bring quite a lot of other stuff to the table.
For one, the rivalry between Gds & Cdos means that we push harder when they are around. They are always on the ball as they don't want to look bad in front of us ... that in turn drives us to do our best to try to show them up. For the most part, they also do share their technical and operational experience.
It has often been said that the best should become teachers so as to share what they know ... viewed in that light, the attachment of these Cdos can't really be all that bad. -
I think our armed forces should monitor and maintain the combat health of our servicemen more closely. Professional sportmen/women do so with intimate care to prolong their compeitive sporting life. For combat vocation that deal with life-threatening scenario, I don't see any reasons why we, as individuals and part of a combat unit, should exercise less care. I am not saying we should invest the kind of $$$ that, say, elite soccer club spend to monitor and recuperate their players. Targeted measures can be implemented to instill the right awareness in individual soldier. I know of one exemplary regular who won awards from overseas training courses with practically all ligaments/tendons torn in his body. Yeah, granted all the torn tissues were surgically mended but weakened tissues are prone to tear at most unsuspected and awkward moments. Moreover, most tissue injuries are cummulative in nature and will only surface later in life. Do you have confidence to send soldier in such state of combat health on real ops? To quote an example, British SAS was deployed in Oman/Aden in post-WWII period. A covert recon patrol was compromised and at least 2 death ensued. What happened was that a signaller trooper failed to report sick before insertion. When he eventually collapsed, the patrol had to hide in a lousy location to attend to him. The hide was discovered... A nail came off a horse shoe unnoticed; the horse collapse eventually; the general died from the horse fall; and the country fall.
I don't expect senior soldiers to charge up a ridge with me. If they can charge with me, it's a bonus. I expect direction and leadership from them at critical moments, wise command gleaned from years of soldiering experience. So, I am fully supportive of "excess to requirement" elite soldiers being redeployed to less demanding vocation. Their valuable experience should be shared, not lost forever when they leave the service or pass on. -
Just in case you are wondering why I am harping on the weight of combat load carried by riflemen in general. I am getting on in age. My joints are creaking now.
I never say die when I was young and hearty; I thought I was invulnerable to physical challenges.
Met and chat with a guy in his 50's at the hawker centre a month back. He looked in reasonable shape to me at his age. He claimed he was very sporty in his prime days, participating in marathon, climbing, do high repeitition push-up, seat-up, chin-up and etc. Now, he is aching and regretting all the abuses he subjected himself to in the past. Some homosapiens are less susceptible to injuries than other but, I think, based on my observations, they are in the minority.
In fact, homosapiens do not have bio-mechanically sound structure to carry external load. So, why should we carry unnecessary and unreasonable load in the first place unless we are forced by circumstances. A documentary that I watched claims that homosapien should have evolved biologically to move on all four limbs, not on the legs. (Can't remember why we evolved to walk on 2 legs now) That explained why arthritis are so prevalant in the knee and ankle joints.