thedrifter
04-23-09, 06:49 AM
Military aims to ease soldiers' load
By: Jen DiMascio
April 23, 2009 04:24 AM EST
As part of the seemingly endless search for military body armor that is strong enough to protect against enemy bullets but light enough for warriors to actually run while wearing it, the Marines recently sent a research team to Afghanistan to weigh some men and their gear.
They put a mortarman’s equipment on the scales, according to Gen. James Amos, assistant commandant of the Marines, and the load weighed 142.26 pounds.
“Now, there is an old military historian by the name of S.L.A. Marshall who many, many years ago said an infantry man should never wear more than 50 percent of his body weight,” Amos recently told lawmakers on the Hill.
“This mortarman is wearing 142.26 pounds. When you think about how much he probably weighed, maybe 170 to 180 pounds, and you go to what S.L.A. Marshall talked about — this has been a problem for infantrymen, to be honest with you, all the way back to the days of Alexander the Great.”
But these days, with tens of thousands of U.S. forces fighting insurgencies in the rugged, inhospitable terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem has become particularly vexing for the Pentagon. Soldiers say the restrictive, bulbous vests — a large weighs 33 pounds — are too bulky and heavy, and military officials say wearing the armor contributes to dangerously high levels of fatigue and, occasionally, serious injury.
“We cannot look like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man walking around trying to fight,” one soldier said in a recent post-combat Army survey. “We need to be sleek, flexible and fast.”
“All of it worked, but it is too much,” said another soldier. “We do not have the mobility that you would want or need.”
Those kinds of comments, as well as increases in nagging back pain, sprains and strains, are driving efforts by the Army and Marine Corps to look for more creative ways to lighten the load. With 33 pounds already devoted to the suit of armor and bullet-deflecting plates, additional equipment quickly adds up: an M4 carbine, ammunition, hydration system and food can easily tack on another 25 pounds.
There are practical, lifesaving considerations, too, especially as the focus of war moves from desert-like Iraq to mountainous (but still stifling) Afghanistan, because large loads hamper a solder’s ability to shoot straight.
After carrying 101 pounds for more than 12 miles, for instance, soldiers shooting at a target missed it 26 percent more often, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli recently told Congress.
Furthermore, he said in prepared testimony, “the reality is you cannot hump a rucksack at 8,000 to 11,000 feet for 15 months, even at a young age, and not have an impact on your body.”
But despite all the technological advances in military hardware, the effort to reduce the load a soldier carries has proved difficult, he said, particularly in making lightweight plates that can stop enemy munitions.
“The technological chances of being able to cut that weight in half are still many years down the road when it comes to the plates themselves,” Chiarelli told lawmakers.
Modern body armor has been a success story, saving thousands of lives during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the perspective of military contracting, it has also been a sore point.
In 2003, the Army could not buy body armor for its soldiers fast enough. Extensive congressional pressure spurred the Army to rapidly award contracts to a number of small specialty body armor suppliers, which critics say resulted in questions about quality control. Early this year, a Pentagon inspector general investigation requested by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) found problems with Army testing that led Army Secretary Pete Geren to pull about 16,000 armor plates for further inspection.
Meanwhile, the rise of homemade roadside bombs — known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs — in Iraq persuaded the military to bulk up protection to shoulders, sides and groins to guard against shrapnel. That’s the extra protection that soldiers complain makes them slow and uncomfortable.
So the search continues: The Marines have a squad called Gruntworks that constantly looks for better ways to distribute gear and offer better protection for different types of missions. Next month, the Army has planned a demonstration comparing new armor that protects vital areas with current armor that doesn’t protect as well. The Marines and the Army have teamed up to find a helmet that weighs less; the Army also is pursuing the purchase of a modular body armor vest that special operations forces use, but according to news reports, the effort has been put on hold. Supplemental war funding dollars may pay for new lightweight body armor.
The military is also looking at ways to let troop commanders decide the level of protection required for a specific mission.
The Marines, for instance, are considering a policy that would give commanders more flexibility to decide how much armor their troops should wear, particularly if wearing less armor improved mobility, ************* reported Tuesday.
The services are attacking the problem on the medical front, as well.
From 2007 to 2008, the military saw a 4 percent increase in acute orthopedic injuries, said Lt. Col. George Kyle, deputy commander for clinical services for the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center at Fort Meade, Md. He attributed much of the increase to the heavy loads soldiers are carrying.
“That’s a trend that our senior leaders want to arrest and reverse if possible,” Kyle said. He said the Army is assigning physical therapists to brigade combat teams and hoping they’ll institute a sports medicine philosophy geared toward preventing injuries before they happen.
Initial results are promising, Kyle said. He noted that the “tactical athletes” from the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, N.Y., which served as a guinea pig for the new training regimen, “had fewer injuries to lower extremities.”
“You want ultimate protection, yet you can’t have a solider wearing the armor of the knights,” Kyle said. “What’s the right amount, allowing the soldier to still be a soldier?”
Ellie
By: Jen DiMascio
April 23, 2009 04:24 AM EST
As part of the seemingly endless search for military body armor that is strong enough to protect against enemy bullets but light enough for warriors to actually run while wearing it, the Marines recently sent a research team to Afghanistan to weigh some men and their gear.
They put a mortarman’s equipment on the scales, according to Gen. James Amos, assistant commandant of the Marines, and the load weighed 142.26 pounds.
“Now, there is an old military historian by the name of S.L.A. Marshall who many, many years ago said an infantry man should never wear more than 50 percent of his body weight,” Amos recently told lawmakers on the Hill.
“This mortarman is wearing 142.26 pounds. When you think about how much he probably weighed, maybe 170 to 180 pounds, and you go to what S.L.A. Marshall talked about — this has been a problem for infantrymen, to be honest with you, all the way back to the days of Alexander the Great.”
But these days, with tens of thousands of U.S. forces fighting insurgencies in the rugged, inhospitable terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem has become particularly vexing for the Pentagon. Soldiers say the restrictive, bulbous vests — a large weighs 33 pounds — are too bulky and heavy, and military officials say wearing the armor contributes to dangerously high levels of fatigue and, occasionally, serious injury.
“We cannot look like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man walking around trying to fight,” one soldier said in a recent post-combat Army survey. “We need to be sleek, flexible and fast.”
“All of it worked, but it is too much,” said another soldier. “We do not have the mobility that you would want or need.”
Those kinds of comments, as well as increases in nagging back pain, sprains and strains, are driving efforts by the Army and Marine Corps to look for more creative ways to lighten the load. With 33 pounds already devoted to the suit of armor and bullet-deflecting plates, additional equipment quickly adds up: an M4 carbine, ammunition, hydration system and food can easily tack on another 25 pounds.
There are practical, lifesaving considerations, too, especially as the focus of war moves from desert-like Iraq to mountainous (but still stifling) Afghanistan, because large loads hamper a solder’s ability to shoot straight.
After carrying 101 pounds for more than 12 miles, for instance, soldiers shooting at a target missed it 26 percent more often, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli recently told Congress.
Furthermore, he said in prepared testimony, “the reality is you cannot hump a rucksack at 8,000 to 11,000 feet for 15 months, even at a young age, and not have an impact on your body.”
But despite all the technological advances in military hardware, the effort to reduce the load a soldier carries has proved difficult, he said, particularly in making lightweight plates that can stop enemy munitions.
“The technological chances of being able to cut that weight in half are still many years down the road when it comes to the plates themselves,” Chiarelli told lawmakers.
Modern body armor has been a success story, saving thousands of lives during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the perspective of military contracting, it has also been a sore point.
In 2003, the Army could not buy body armor for its soldiers fast enough. Extensive congressional pressure spurred the Army to rapidly award contracts to a number of small specialty body armor suppliers, which critics say resulted in questions about quality control. Early this year, a Pentagon inspector general investigation requested by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) found problems with Army testing that led Army Secretary Pete Geren to pull about 16,000 armor plates for further inspection.
Meanwhile, the rise of homemade roadside bombs — known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs — in Iraq persuaded the military to bulk up protection to shoulders, sides and groins to guard against shrapnel. That’s the extra protection that soldiers complain makes them slow and uncomfortable.
So the search continues: The Marines have a squad called Gruntworks that constantly looks for better ways to distribute gear and offer better protection for different types of missions. Next month, the Army has planned a demonstration comparing new armor that protects vital areas with current armor that doesn’t protect as well. The Marines and the Army have teamed up to find a helmet that weighs less; the Army also is pursuing the purchase of a modular body armor vest that special operations forces use, but according to news reports, the effort has been put on hold. Supplemental war funding dollars may pay for new lightweight body armor.
The military is also looking at ways to let troop commanders decide the level of protection required for a specific mission.
The Marines, for instance, are considering a policy that would give commanders more flexibility to decide how much armor their troops should wear, particularly if wearing less armor improved mobility, ************* reported Tuesday.
The services are attacking the problem on the medical front, as well.
From 2007 to 2008, the military saw a 4 percent increase in acute orthopedic injuries, said Lt. Col. George Kyle, deputy commander for clinical services for the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center at Fort Meade, Md. He attributed much of the increase to the heavy loads soldiers are carrying.
“That’s a trend that our senior leaders want to arrest and reverse if possible,” Kyle said. He said the Army is assigning physical therapists to brigade combat teams and hoping they’ll institute a sports medicine philosophy geared toward preventing injuries before they happen.
Initial results are promising, Kyle said. He noted that the “tactical athletes” from the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, N.Y., which served as a guinea pig for the new training regimen, “had fewer injuries to lower extremities.”
“You want ultimate protection, yet you can’t have a solider wearing the armor of the knights,” Kyle said. “What’s the right amount, allowing the soldier to still be a soldier?”
Ellie