lol - chill lads - my last 'combat' was in Baghdad in 2004 - a very different ball game to what is happening in Afghanistan now so the likes of Cal, Jungle and a couple of British Soldiers who have been to Afghan and frequent this site is far more valid than my input. i was just quoting recent developments in this field that will no doubt filter out to other armies.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Daysack / webbing / Armour - Are we getting overloaded?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by apod View Posti believe we should give him the FINAL say and then please,please somebody lock this thread.
The subject of a Soldiers load will forever be analysed until they invent some system of zero-g.
There have been, are and will be many studies on the effects of weight on a soldiers performance - which in turn will lead to effects on unit capabilities and mission outcomes.
Metabolic effects of soldier performance on a simulated graded road march while wearing two functionally equivalent military ensembles.
Crowder TA, Beekley MD, Sturdivant RX, Johnson CA, Lumpkin A.
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine metabolic effects of soldier performance on a simulated road march, comparing two functionally equivalent military ensembles (FEMEs) with changing gradation of marching, and to create prediction equations addressing workload with different loads and treadmill grades. METHODS: Fourteen male military subjects were tested while wearing two different FEMEs on a graded (0%, 5%, or 10%), 3.5 miles/h, road march for 30 minutes. Data collected included oxygen uptake (VO2), carbon dioxide output, ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio, and heart rate (HR). RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two FEMEs in each graded condition. Combining ensemble data, significant differences occurred in all conditions, comparing all grades. A 10% graded road march (3.5 miles/h, approximately 27-kg load) represented 61% to 90% of maximal values. For treadmill grades of <10%, VO2 and HR were modeled as follows (adjusted R2 = 0.89 [VO2] and 0.82 [HR]): VO2 (mL/kg per minute) = 10 + [2 - grade (%)] + [0.2 - load (% of body mass)]; HR (beats per minute) = 90 + [6 . grade (%)] + [0.7 - load (% of body mass)]. CONCLUSIONS: Three factors, namely, elevation grade, equipment weight (load), and overall subject physical abilities, were significant for overall metabolic demand during a simulated graded road march and might affect field performance.
Effects of military load carriage on kinematics of gait.
Majumdar D, Pal MS, Majumdar D.
Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Lucknow Road, Delhi, India. majum55@yahoo.com
Abstract
Manual load carriage is a universal activity and an inevitable part of the daily schedule of a soldier. Indian Infantry soldiers carry loads on the waist, back, shoulders and in the hands for a marching order. There is no reported study on the effects of load on gait in this population. It is important to evaluate their kinematic responses to existing load carriage operations and to provide guidelines towards the future design of heavy military backpacks (BPs) for optimising soldiers' performance. Kinematic changes of gait parameters in healthy male infantry soldiers whilst carrying no load (NL) and military loads of 4.2-17.5 kg (6.5-27.2% body weight) were investigated. All comparisons were conducted at a self-selected speed. Soldier characteristics were: mean (SD) age 23.3 (2.6) years; height 172.0 (3.8) cm; weight 64.3 (7.4) kg. Walk trials were collected using a 3-D Motion Analysis System. Results were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett post hoc test. There were increases in step length, stride length, cadence and midstance with the addition of a load compared to NL. These findings were resultant of an adaptive phenomenon within the individual to counterbalance load effect along with changes in speed. Ankle and hip ranges of motion (ROM) were significant. The ankle was more dorsiflexed, the knee and hip were more flexed during foot strike and helped in absorption of the load. The trunk showed more forward leaning with the addition of a load to adjust the centre of mass of the body and BP system back to the NL condition. Significant increases in ankle and hip ROM and trunk forward inclination (> or =10 degrees ) with lighter loads, such as a BP (10.7 kg), BP with rifle (14.9 kg) and BP with a light machine gun (17.5 kg), may cause joint injuries. It is concluded that the existing BP needs design improvisation specifically for use in low intensity conflict environments. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: The present study evaluates spatial, temporal and angular changes at trunk and limb joints during military load carriage of relatively lighter magnitude. Studies on similar aspects on the specific population are limited. These data can be used for optimising load carriage and designing ensembles, especially a heavy BP, for military operations.Methodological Issues when Assessing Dismounted
Soldier Mobility Performance
David M. Bassan, Angela C. Boynton and Samson V. Ortega
Human Research and Engineering Directorate
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 USA
dbassan@arl.army.mil, aboynton@arl.army.mil, sortega@arl.army.mil
ABSTRACT
A challenge in fielding new soldier equipment lies in assessing how to trade off the increased combat effectiveness provided by the equipment with the decreased mobility associated with increasing the load carried by the soldier. In order to help address this challenge, this paper examined the relationship between characteristics of the load carried and time to complete an obstacle course. The objective was to derive a prediction equation for time to complete an obstacle course while carrying weapon systems of various length
and weight. Data from 13 studies conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland obstacle course from 1973 to the present were analyzed using regression analysis. We found a positive linear relationship between obstacle course completion time and total load carried (r2 = 0.59, p<0.000), with a slope of 3.58.
That is, each additional pound carried increased completion time by 3.58 seconds. Several issues related to the methodology for evaluating and predicting mobility performance during load carriage were identified. Correct addressing these issues should increase the r2 of the prediction equation. Recommendations and plans for future load carriage studies are also discussed.Minimal Additional Weight of Combat Equipment Alters Air
Assault Soldiers’ Landing Biomechanics
Timothy C. Sell, PhD * ; Yungchien Chu, MS * ; John P. Abt, PhD * ; Takashi Nagai, MS *†;
Jennifer Deluzio, BS *†; LTC Mark A. McGrail , MD ‡ ; LTC Russell S. Rowe , MD § ; Scott M. Lephart, PhD *
ABSTRACT
The additional weight of combat and protective equipment carried by soldiers on the battlefield and insufficient adaptations to this weight may increase the risk of musculoskeletal injury. The objective of this study was to determine
the effects of the additional weight of equipment on knee kinematics and vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) during two-legged drop landings. We tested kinematics and VGRF of 70 air assault soldiers performing drop landings with and without wearing the equipment. Maximum knee fl exion angles, maximum vertical ground reaction forces, and the time from initial contact to these maximum values all increased with the additional weight of equipment. Proper landing technique, additional weight (perhaps in the form of combat and protective equipment), and eccentric strengthening of the hips and knees should be integrated into soldiers’ training to induce musculoskeletal and biomechanical adaptations
to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injury during two-legged drop landing maneuvers.Last edited by ZULU; 29 June 2010, 13:48."The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostIt's what is commonly known as a "zombie" thread. You can't kill it.
interesting reading Zulu, thanks for the info.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostIt's what is commonly known as a "zombie" thread. You can't kill it.
Can we put more faith in our logs train as normal soldiers and not SF :YES
Can we utilise new technology to lighten the weight of certain items :YES
Will those certain items(IE:Batteries/Rations) still need to be carried:YES
Will CBA be worn for all exercises and OPS:YES
Will daysacks be needed to carry ALL the equipment a soldier needs to fight and sustain himself and his section/Platoon during dismounted close combat:YES
Could we use quad bikes for resup/casevac during said dismounted ops:YES ,but we aint gonna get them anytime soon.
So the points have been well proven over the life of this thread.Why flog a dead horse???Last edited by apod; 29 June 2010, 23:21."Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
Comment
-
Originally posted by apod View PostPrecisely.It is a thread that is going nowhere and one that always leads to acrimony.Also the thread has gotton so long that it seems some folks cant remember their own point of view that started the thread.Complaining about having to wear daysacks whilst assaulting on one hand and then on the other making statements like "keep training folks" which would imply that heavy loads are here to stay.My call to have the thread locked has nothing to with me "having my say".It is because the point has been proven."we are overloaded".Can we do anything about it.Most of the time no.Sometimes yes.
Can we put more faith in our logs train as normal soldiers and not SF :YES
Can we utilise new technology to lighten the weight of certain items :YES
Will those certain items(IE:Batteries/Rations) still need to be carried:YES
Will CBA be worn for all exercises and OPS:YES
Will daysacks be needed to carry ALL the equipment a soldier needs to fight and sustain himself and his section/Platoon during dismounted close combat:YES
Could we use quad bikes for resup/casevac during said dismounted ops:YES ,but we aint gonna get them anytime soon.
So the points have been well proven over the life of this thread.Why flog a dead horse???
If you dont want to contribute you dont have to. You simply dont look at the thread if it annoys you that much.
As I just posted, there is plenty to talk about on the whole subject. Just because YOU dont like the thread doesn't meant it needs to be locked.
If thats your attitude, why discuss anything relating to military tactics and technology if"the points have all been well proven""The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"
Comment
-
APOD is right we do carry to much either on our belts or on our backs-
In the CTD (e) years ago- one of the best Sgts ever a guy called VB
would after the end of an exercise- make you empty your CEFO and CEMO
(58 pattern) and stack used and unused on different sides-he would then
set aside the neccessities (spare grub socks etc) and demonstrate the
unneccessary spare gear that we all carry-Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Comment
-
I suppose the reality is that even if we carried the gucciest lightest most compact equipment available, and shaved kilos off the total weight carried, it would only free up space/weight to carry more bullets, bombs and water, bringing us right back to the weight we were at originally. As long as we set a prescedent of how much weight can be carried over a set distance/time, that's what we'll carry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ZULU View PostSo there is no need to talk about any of the developments that come on stream is there?
If you dont want to contribute you dont have to. You simply dont look at the thread if it annoys you that much.
As I just posted, there is plenty to talk about on the whole subject. Just because YOU dont like the thread doesn't meant it needs to be locked.
If thats your attitude, why discuss anything relating to military tactics and technology if
FS
Swift and Sure is also right about the less certain items weigh the more you will be tempted to carry.To paraphrase a Yank quote "200lbs of lightweight gear"."Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SwiftandSure View PostI suppose the reality is that even if we carried the gucciest lightest most compact equipment available, and shaved kilos off the total weight carried, it would only free up space/weight to carry more bullets, bombs and water, bringing us right back to the weight we were at originally. As long as we set a prescedent of how much weight can be carried over a set distance/time, that's what we'll carry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedgehog View PostAPOD is right we do carry to much either on our belts or on our backs-
In the CTD (e) years ago- one of the best Sgts ever a guy called VB
would after the end of an exercise- make you empty your CEFO and CEMO
(58 pattern) and stack used and unused on different sides-he would then
set aside the neccessities (spare grub socks etc) and demonstrate the
unneccessary spare gear that we all carry-
Although if everyone did look at packing in that light, where would it end? Private, what do you mean you left your CBA back in Barracks?....... Well sur I havent been hit with live ammo on any of our previous exercises so I felt it was just unnecessary weight on my already over burdened frame
Comment
-
Originally posted by CS Gass View PostThats a really good idea but I would imagine a much easier policy for a Sgt to follow than for a Pte
Although if everyone did look at packing in that light, where would it end? Private, what do you mean you left your CBA back in Barracks?....... Well sur I havent been hit with live ammo on any of our previous exercises so I felt it was just unnecessary weight on my already over burdened frame
Your point is a red herring.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
Comment