Marines, Afghan National Police stay vigilant in southern AfghanistanThe debate over mobility versus protection and complaints from the field is by no means new. However, the recent focus on “returning [the Corps] to its high-mobility, high-tempo expeditionary roots” make it seem to be the source of newly focused attention.

Marine Corps System Command, Marine Corps Capabilities Directorate and others are participating in the Marine Corps Load Effect Assessment Program and “Lighten the Load” initiative.

“A middleweight fighter can fight one weight class down or one weight class up,” said George Solhan, Director of Marine Corps Science and Technology, echoing the sentiment of Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, who originally compared the Marine Corps to a middleweight boxer.

Whatever the latest underlying rationale, the need to do something about the constraints of load to troops on the ground has been pressing for years. Complaints from those maneuvering in cumbersome, mandatory armor are virtually incessant, and concerns from medical professionals and about increasing musculoskeletal injuries scarcely less frequent. Put in simple terms, there are many experienced warfighters who believe they’re less likely to be shot in the first place without all that gear.

I recall a conversation during some training in 2005 wherein several salty Marines from 1/5, 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion and the Scout Scout Sniper School opined that their casualty rate would actually go down if they were allowed to doff their armor. One staff sergeant, superbly conditioned and a veteran of numerous deployments, put it candidly.

“You can’t [expletive] fight if you can’t [expletive] move, or if you’re exhausted. Listen dog, we’re in awesome shape but if [the helicopter] sets us down too [expetive] far out, or in the wrong [expletive] place, and we have to run a couple hundred meters to hit a house, I’m smoked and so are my Marines.”

I’ve heard similar complaints from soldiers and Marines attempting to close with the enemy outside the wire in Afghanistan, especially those who were operating at higher altitudes. In fairness, there are arguments to requiring armor, but there can be no doubt there is a problem.

In April, Army and Marine Corps leaders testified before Congress about the progress toward lightening the burden on troops. Topics included female body armor, the Scalable Plate Carrier (SPC) and new technologies.

The Marine Corps has chosen not to pursue female-specific body armor like the Army’s Gen III Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest (FIOTV), asserting their SPC is sufficiently adjustable to provide armor protection for any size and shape Marine. Brig Gen. Eric M. Smith, head of the Marine Corps Capabilities Directorate, said frankly: “We will not sacrifice protection for comfort.”

The Army is shipping 600 sets of the FIOTV into Afghanistan in a couple months. The female body armor comes in eight sizes and reduces wear weight by 6 pounds.

Brig. Gen. Ostrowski, head of PEO Soldier, mentioned the development of new protective materials like nanotech, which could potentially make body armor lighter without sacrificing the capability of stopping projectiles and similar projects from Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

Researchers and academics have studied the physical wear these loads have on troops’ entire bodies. The RAND Corporation released its study to that effect a year and a half ago, and Infantry Magazine was talking about it in 2003. In fact, there are official reports, anecdotal accounts and press releases dating almost back to 2001 addressing the need to balance protection and mobility.

Both the Marine Cops and Army have made major investments in renewable technologies to subtract the weight of batteries from a pack. These include solar panels that a Marine can simply roll out of his pack.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) released a video in 2012 addressing “Lighten the Load” efforts to improve Marines agility and lethality without sacrificing protection.

The message mandates three focus areas:

1) The ability to out-think the enemy. “Massive amounts of data and countless intelligence reports bombard Marine analysts…” is certainly true but can be a very bad thing when it results in over thinking things or causing a unhealthy emphasis on information by volume. An increased surveillance/reconnaissance ability is an awesome force multiplier. Unfortunately, in an age where we are more and more dependent on technology — and hesitant to take action without its nod of approval — it could just make things even more cumbersome at the tactical operations center.

2) The ability to outmaneuver the adversary speaks directly to the impact of “Lighten the Load on individual Marines. “Total maneuver dominance” is a compelling catchphrase for staff meetings and is no doubt important. However, it isn’t until the 5 minute mark that we see body armor. It is disheartening to see them devote just a fraction of time to load-out versus tech-related and logistical emphasis.

3) The ability to outperform the adversary. Again, officials discuss logistic footprints and weapon development. This speaks to lethality and sustainability. Also, the Future Immersive Training Environment at the 7:54 mark seems promising.

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

Moondawg May 9, 2013 at 5:08 am

Makes sense. In the old days the knights were heavily armored. They were defeated by lightly armored, or unarmored, agile ground soldiers, or on horseback by mounted archers.

Reply

desk_pilot May 9, 2013 at 9:05 am

Yah, robot trucks and even more data! They are overthinking this. Make the gear lighter.

Reply

Christian May 9, 2013 at 9:56 am

As I watched this video I saw lots of justification for fancy new modular hyprid vehicles and expensive mortar rounds, and not much on lighter armor, lighter batteries, lighter radios, lighter molle gear, lighter weapons and lighter ammo. It is the individual warfighter on foot who cant move, they have plenty of vehicles to get them to the fight.

This video seemed to be justification for big-budget items and multi-billion dollar defense contracts, and as usual the soldiers dont get what they really want, ask for, and need.

Reply

Frank May 9, 2013 at 11:39 am

As an old guy it's my job to dump a little reality into these timeless arguments. The US military can change technology but it can't change it's ground combat mobility problems. This is an institutional mindset that's been with us since the US Cavalry was trying to run down Indians with horses carrying loads that forced them to walk there horses as much as they rode them (not to mention they didn't really "catch" many Indians). US infantrymen will always carry, "100 lbs of the lightest weight gear available". They will always go to ground and call in Air and Arty when they make contact. I'm sure that most US generals are extremely irritated by all this talk about maneuvering, reducing weight, doing raids and all the door kicking stuff. It's just too simple and doesn't involve enough technology (although they're always looking for some). General Officer input is all that interests them. Now that we're getting over this silly WOT Generals can go back to making big plans and buying expensive technology devoted to giving Generals ever more control of those in contact. As my life winds down I've decided to put this on my tombstone so future generations will understand these timeless truths: "The US Army Leadership still wants to attrit instead of maneuver, the infantry carries 100 lbs, and there's no need to replace the AR."

Reply

mpower6428 May 9, 2013 at 11:40 am

"Lighten the Load" = think of more ways to keep state-side officers on the promotion latter, system techs over-funded and contrator CEO's getting their x-mas bonus's.

nothing in this video was very encouraging. the production and editing reminded me of a rumsfeld approved FCS propaganda piece. and we havent seen much of that shit in the news reels lately.

meanwhile, taliban poppy farmers are making laps around our servicemen at 10k feet with cigarettes hanging outa their mouths…. for fun.

Reply

Axel May 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm

Lighter Gear, I'm all for. Lighter equipment, fuck it; we can mess w/ that shit further down the road when or IF we get more money!

Reply

majrod May 10, 2013 at 9:35 am

Some of the weight is self inflicted. America expects bloodless wars. Many in Congress have used casualties as a club to beat the other party creating further pressure to reduce casualties. The senior officers don't have the balls to tell the truth being that people get killed in combat for fear of not seeming caring or PC.

All this crap rolls downhill and we have commands at the BDE or higher level dictating how much body armor should be worn. This is why we commonly saw the Michelin man look in Iraq with troops wearing everything from the groin plate to the deltoid protectors (shoulder pads), instead of plate carriers. Company CO/1SGT or even lower should be deciding how much armor to wear. They know who they are facing, how fast they have to move, the troops and have to write the letters home.

Reply

Adam May 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

US SOF are always super lightweight and very effective. Why not just do it that way?

Reply

Lance May 11, 2013 at 12:45 am

All these fancy vest and gear yet myself and many other do fine with a plate vest and LC-2 ALICE gear. Maybe the military is keep over doing the gear soooooo many time over now there just screwing thins up.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: