View Single Post
  #59  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:32 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

While the idea that soldiers should carry no more 32% of their total body weight is a great idea, it's like the saying "No plan survives contact with the enemy." It all works in theory but practical necessity says otherwise.

I think in the 1800s when armies marched for several days to reach a battlefield, it would have been realistically achievable (and completely necessary). They would only have needed to carry fighting order and the baggage trains would carry the rest.
But from the 20th century on, I doubt infantry soldiers in most modern armies would be carrying less than 40% of their body weight. Distances to the battlefield are shorter now because transport drops you as close as possible - there is no baggage train to carry all your extra gear, you carry it all in with you.

Take even a brief look at what the British Paras did in the Falklands and you'll see that infantry units are capable of such feats. Those guys were carrying closer to 80% of their own bodyweight
Even in more modern conflicts like Afghanistan, infantry (of whatever flavour) are carrying bulk ammo and water and plenty more medical supplies than usual, plus all the commo gear and body armour - those troops are not carrying 32% or less of their own bodyweight, it'd be more like 40-50%.

Reminds me of a saying that was common in the Australia Army during the 1970s-90s...
The infantry doesn't want racehorses, it wants packhorses.
Reply With Quote