| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll |
| 2009-02-02 |
| Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 Why nobody has put two and two together just mystifies. That's probably because you aren't aware of research in just those areas that has been funded by the Army for the last several years. As early as 2001 the Army had concept videos that included suits that not only could provide some emergency exoskeleton support to a wounded soldier but could also monitor blood pressure, apply emergency pressure to staunch bleeding etc. OTOH, suits that are primarily aimed at carrying gear aren't necessarily the right solution. That's one reason that the Army has developed prototype ground robots to serve as pack mules for solders. The mature ones are tracked, but DOD has also funded major work in robots with articulated legs that could carry loads in e.g. mountainous terrain. Google Big Dog for one example from a few years ago. Noise and power generation are the main bottlenecks now before those can be put into serious testing. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-02-02 19:51 |
| #6 An interesting zinger is that those "always experimental" exoskeleton soldier suits make no sense in using traditional materials like thick aluminum bars. However, we now have incredibly strong advanced materials that are just the fraction of the size and weight. Why nobody has put two and two together just mystifies. Of course, the biggest obstacle are the hybrid power supplies. Most likely these will be a blend of advanced capacitor, fuel cell, hydrogen peroxide piston, battery, and who knows what all else. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-02-02 18:01 |
| #5 "Individual Marine combat loads -- including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water, food and communications gear -- range from 97 to 135 pounds, well over the recommended 50 pounds. In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions" |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-02-02 14:14 |
| #4 Females got it even worse due to the difference in pelvic girdle and bone density. They get far more lower leg injuries and hip problems then the males due to the weight of the gear. Wimin hating, sexist male trash talk! More of these factoids and it will be the Bidet Trap for YOU! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-02-02 14:09 |
| #3 I'm sorry I mis-remembered it, P2K has it on his link thingy. "Soldiers load and the Mobility of a Nation." That was it. I read it at 29 Palms about a decade ago during a combined arms exercise. I remember giggling sarcastically to myself while reading this book while perched on my 80lb mountain ruck sack. |
| Posted by: Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-02-02 14:07 |
| #2 I read the "combat load and the mobility of the soldier" as a new 2ndLt many moons ago. Basically said the same things 35-40 lbs for the avg male is a good max wt to put on them. Most people don't have the frames for anything more. I was fortunate having lifted lots of weights and playing football growing up to have decent lower body and core strength. Females got it even worse due to the difference in pelvic girdle and bone density. They get far more lower leg injuries and hip problems then the males due to the weight of the gear. |
| Posted by: Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-02-02 14:03 |
| #1 It's a problem older than you can imagine. Once you get over 35 lbs, it starts to wear down the body if done for sustained periods. Equipment may come and go, but no one has engineered new knees, ankles, or feet in several hundred thousand years. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-02-02 09:14 |