User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:19:59 AM EDT
[#1]
COOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:23:47 AM EDT
[#2]
First picture, front row, 3rd from left looks just like Perconte from BoB miniseries.
Awesome pics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:31:11 AM EDT
[#3]
What a grind that war must have been. Soaked in trenches, mud, filth, rats and then charging machine guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:32:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology It's interesting to read about how much issue gear got dumped once joe got off the boat, both in WW1 and WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:42:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not a fake tree. That's a fake dead horse observation post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not a fake tree. That's a fake dead horse observation post. He was probably referring to the tree in the pictures at the link. The next poster posted the dead horse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:04:01 AM EDT
[#6]
As someone who has a borderline unhealthy obsession with aviation. I would drool at the chance to fly in one of these.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:19:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Average male height in the USA today is 5'10" In 1912, it was 5'8" http://i.imgur.com/nwCPryK.jpg source: Durrell’s School Algebra (1912) In 1776, it was 5'8" http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/15/garden/american-men-of-1776-said-to-have-stood-tall.html Interestingly, the average height dropped a bit between 1776 and 1900. The drop can be attributed to the environmental conditions resulting from industrialism in the late 19th century, coupled with the influx of (shorter) immigrants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be Average male height in the USA today is 5'10" In 1912, it was 5'8" http://i.imgur.com/nwCPryK.jpg source: Durrell’s School Algebra (1912) In 1776, it was 5'8" http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/15/garden/american-men-of-1776-said-to-have-stood-tall.html Interestingly, the average height dropped a bit between 1776 and 1900. The drop can be attributed to the environmental conditions resulting from industrialism in the late 19th century, coupled with the influx of (shorter) immigrants. It surprises me why someone would even make the statement when it's only about an inch, to an inch and a half difference between now and then. It's not that much smaller. The weight difference is huge, but they didn't have the average fat asses we have today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:21:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah those guys didn't carry shit compared to modern infantry. Just your plates, carrier, and kevlar probably weigh as much as pretty much all the shit those guys shuffled around in on a regular basis. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. Yeah those guys didn't carry shit compared to modern infantry. Just your plates, carrier, and kevlar probably weigh as much as pretty much all the shit those guys shuffled around in on a regular basis. That's a fairly recent thing. Prior to 2001/2003 timeframe there were no plates and plate carriers... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:28:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
President Lincoln was 6'4" which was an astonishing stature at that time but is fairly typical today. But look at Lincoln and compare with his troops. http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/documentaries/living-with-lincoln/living-with-lincoln-1024.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be President Lincoln was 6'4" which was an astonishing stature at that time but is fairly typical today. But look at Lincoln and compare with his troops. http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/documentaries/living-with-lincoln/living-with-lincoln-1024.jpg Lots of big Americans early I. The country's history especially around 1800. Diet on the frontier and farms was heavy in protein. I've read George washington from could crush walnut shells in his hand. But back to the pictures. The photo of th old string bag Harry Tate biplane (RE8) was neat. There has long been a debate about t the correct color of the olive dope applied the upper fabric. Shade likely varied batch to batch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:31:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Currently listening to Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon. These photos are incredible! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:35:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology That's because it's why they had to do and they were bad asses who would nut up and get the job done . We have had a serious decrease in that type of intestinal fortitude for the last three generations . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. False you carry more gear and better gear, not heavier gear . Their gear was poorly made , heavy as fuck , totally uncomfortable and got exponentially heavier when it would load full of water and mud . They carried less ammo with more weight and heavier rifles and grenades etc etc etc . Uniforms sucked beyond sucking and their boots were horrible at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:50:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Imagine trying to fight of depression looking at this landscape for days on end and hoping some sniper didn't drill your dome
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:57:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Imagine trying to fight of depression looking at this landscape for days on end and hoping some sniper didn't drill your dome https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12234876_768744959936025_466016129212755400_n.jpg Truth and the malaise of combat was literally invented in the trenches of WWI. No soldiers in any war since that time have endured the hardships, casualties and terrors they did. Killing tech literally out paced strategy and tactics , couple that with non existent PPE and horrible medical technology and no antibiotics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:11:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False you carry more gear and better gear, not heavier gear . Their gear was poorly made , heavy as fuck , totally uncomfortable and got exponentially heavier when it would load full of water and mud . They carried less ammo with more weight and heavier rifles and grenades etc etc etc . Uniforms sucked beyond sucking and their boots were horrible at best. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. False you carry more gear and better gear, not heavier gear . Their gear was poorly made , heavy as fuck , totally uncomfortable and got exponentially heavier when it would load full of water and mud . They carried less ammo with more weight and heavier rifles and grenades etc etc etc . Uniforms sucked beyond sucking and their boots were horrible at best. You're so colossally wrong on this its sad. Germans, French, Brits, Americans, all of them followed the early 20th century studies about combat loads. There is a reason that the 1910 haversack looked the way it did, because it was designed to handle a very specific load, it didn't have room for anything else, to prevent overloading. It was made out of canvas, which isn't any heavier than cordura nylon. And most times the haversack wasn't worn in combat, they carried web gear, one canteen, a bayonet, maybe a few grenades, and a rifle. Add helmet and clothes, it was way under 1/3 of their bodyweight, at a time when they usually weighed about 130-150 lbs. Curious, I weighed myself in Iraq wearing my IOTV with pouches, ammo, radios, grenades, water, demo, etc., it came in at 77 lbs. This didn't include my helmet with NODs, my rifle, or my clothing. Modern combat loads often exceed the approach march loads (combat load + sustainment load) of the old days. Our approach march loads often exceed the weight of a 1914 soldier. You could literally carry one of them on our back and it would be the same weight you carry humping the mountains of Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:18:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're so colossally wrong on this its sad. Germans, French, Brits, Americans, all of them followed the early 20th century studies about combat loads. There is a reason that the 1910 haversack looked the way it did, because it was designed to handle a very specific load, it didn't have room for anything else, to prevent overloading. It was made out of canvas, which isn't any heavier than cordura nylon. And most times the haversack wasn't worn in combat, they carried web gear, one canteen, a bayonet, maybe a few grenades, and a rifle. Add helmet and clothes, it was way under 1/3 of their bodyweight, at a time when they usually weighed about 130-150 lbs. Curious, I weighed myself in Iraq wearing my IOTV with pouches, ammo, radios, grenades, water, demo, etc., it came in at 77 lbs. This didn't include my helmet with NODs, my rifle, or my clothing. Modern combat loads often exceed the approach march loads (combat load + sustainment load) of the old days. Our approach march loads often exceed the weight of a 1914 soldier. You could literally carry one of them on our back and it would be the same weight you carry humping the mountains of Afghanistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. False you carry more gear and better gear, not heavier gear . Their gear was poorly made , heavy as fuck , totally uncomfortable and got exponentially heavier when it would load full of water and mud . They carried less ammo with more weight and heavier rifles and grenades etc etc etc . Uniforms sucked beyond sucking and their boots were horrible at best. You're so colossally wrong on this its sad. Germans, French, Brits, Americans, all of them followed the early 20th century studies about combat loads. There is a reason that the 1910 haversack looked the way it did, because it was designed to handle a very specific load, it didn't have room for anything else, to prevent overloading. It was made out of canvas, which isn't any heavier than cordura nylon. And most times the haversack wasn't worn in combat, they carried web gear, one canteen, a bayonet, maybe a few grenades, and a rifle. Add helmet and clothes, it was way under 1/3 of their bodyweight, at a time when they usually weighed about 130-150 lbs. Curious, I weighed myself in Iraq wearing my IOTV with pouches, ammo, radios, grenades, water, demo, etc., it came in at 77 lbs. This didn't include my helmet with NODs, my rifle, or my clothing. Modern combat loads often exceed the approach march loads (combat load + sustainment load) of the old days. Our approach march loads often exceed the weight of a 1914 soldier. You could literally carry one of them on our back and it would be the same weight you carry humping the mountains of Afghanistan. Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:21:14 PM EDT
[#17]
In the scheme of things, it hasn't been that long ago that WWI happened and we haven't learned a damn thing. I think war is built into our DNA as a part of natural thinning of the heard.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:22:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who has a borderline unhealthy obsession with aviation. I would drool at the chance to fly in one of these.https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/11889445_732592996884555_8622817890089419333_n.jpg I flew in one of those. Ok, not technically one of those, lol. It was actually as a passenger at an air show, and it was a Stearman bi-plane...but, it was a bi-plane, and yes, we went upside down. Was great fun.  of course the Stearman being more WWII, it benefited in design from the lessons of the earlier bi-planes. I imagine flying in an actual WWI vintage bi-plane was likely much, much different, and more precarious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:23:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the scheme of things, it hasn't been that long ago that WWI happened and we haven't learned a damn thing. I think war is built into our DNA as a part of natural thinning of the heard. We have gotten much better in some ways and much worse in others . Previous generations played to win, we fight wars now for a zero sum gain . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:24:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Just think of all the dicks drawn on all those trench walls.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:25:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology I'm guessing you weren't 11 series. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:25:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine trying to fight of depression looking at this landscape for days on end and hoping some sniper didn't drill your dome https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12234876_768744959936025_466016129212755400_n.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:29:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the scheme of things, it hasn't been that long ago that WWI happened and we haven't learned a damn thing. I think war is built into our DNA as a part of natural thinning of the heard. We've actually learned a lot about fighting wars since then. That's why they don't look anything like what they did 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:29:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:37:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Compared to the WWII uniform, the German WWI uniform looked ill fitted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:37:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2010Winter/07-TheHistoryOfTheSoldiers.pdf Go to page 22 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:38:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Compared to the WWII uniform, the German WWI uniform looked ill fitted Hugo Boss designed the WWII versions |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:38:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Compared to the WWII uniform, the German WWI uniform looked ill fitted |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:39:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:41:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Thanks OP
Colorization has come a long way. Lots of these current color altered pics show much more detail than the original B&W |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:47:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool pictures. Seeing only black and white photos from way back then kinda makes it seem like life only happened in black and white. Seeing the color photos makes it seem more real if that makes any sense. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:47:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. You're a ignorant asshole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:49:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Compared to the WWII uniform, the German WWI uniform looked ill fitted  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:51:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speakin' of uniforms, the French in 1914 looked like they stepped out of 1861. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XQVtLFhnjf8/VdbPsP8nbUI/AAAAAAAARxc/GH_iKzhW8FQ/s1600/French_bayonet_charge.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Compared to the WWII uniform, the German WWI uniform looked ill fitted http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XQVtLFhnjf8/VdbPsP8nbUI/AAAAAAAARxc/GH_iKzhW8FQ/s1600/French_bayonet_charge.jpg That's because it was 19th century equipment . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:55:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:56:01 PM EDT
[#36]
This is seriously blowing my mind. Can someone please explain how a soldier with no armor, a small amount of ammo, a rifle without an optic or ir, no kevlar with nvg bullshit on it, no ifak, no radio, and one canteen can possibly be carrying heavier stuff? WHERE IS IT? are their pants lined with lead? Oh their clothes got wet and muddy? I guess my cammies were defective because they still got wet in water and carried more mud than I thought possible.
The guys saying modern shit is lighter probably never used any of it. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#37]
I would like to send this to some family
but its got new world order adds and big ole titties stuff all over the side and bottom of the page 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:00:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is seriously blowing my mind. Can someone please explain how a soldier with no armor, a small amount of ammo, a rifle without an optic or ir, no kevlar with nvg bullshit on it, no ifak, no radio, and one canteen can possibly be carrying heavier stuff? WHERE IS IT? are their pants lined with lead? Oh their clothes got wet and muddy? I guess my cammies were defective because they still got wet in water and carried more mud than I thought possible. The guys saying modern shit is lighter probably never used any of it. Am I right? Everythjng they had was inferior but you can't seem to absorb that which is amazing. Your uniform not only weighs less it wicks moisture better a dis more resistant to damage. It's called technology. Your IBA is heavier because regular troops were not issued IBA and FYI the IBA that existed back then was heavier and primitive at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:00:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is seriously blowing my mind. Can someone please explain how a soldier with no armor, a small amount of ammo, a rifle without an optic or ir, no kevlar with nvg bullshit on it, no ifak, no radio, and one canteen can possibly be carrying heavier stuff? WHERE IS IT? are their pants lined with lead? Oh their clothes got wet and muddy? I guess my cammies were defective because they still got wet in water and carried more mud than I thought possible. The guys saying modern shit is lighter probably never used any of it. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:03:17 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. I'm not military, and I have no dog in this fight, as it were. But I'm looking at these photos (and other photos from the trenches) and I don't see soldiers carry 60-80 pounds of stuff every single day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:04:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The captured Germans standing next to the Brits looked tiny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be The captured Germans standing next to the Brits looked tiny. They were probably kids. Think about how much a person changes from day 15-20 years old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:06:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? Go to page 22 Have you ever actually personally handled a full load out of WWI era gear . And weighed it against the contemporary modern load , then got it wet and full of mud. Same thing for the uniforms ? Till you do I'm not taking replies like this seriously . The gear they used and the gear the modern soldier uses are not even in the same class. Modern gear is lighter , dries faster, is better fitting , and on and on. I'll admit to being an asshole , ignorant i am not . I collected militaria for 20 years and FYI the modern shit is even lighter than the ALICE gear I was issued. So yeas the gear is not as heavy as the gear they used. Dude, stop while you are behind. Modern American infantryman's fighting load completely dwarfs that of his predecessors. 
Versus 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:07:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would like to send this to some family but its got new world order adds and big ole titties stuff all over the side and bottom of the page Not colorized, but maybe the links in this OP would help: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1621351_.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:10:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only are you wrong you must be Dave_A with the style of respones you constantly post. You have no fucking idea about what you talk about gear has gotten consistently lighter and better, they carried less and it factually ended up weighing more . I collected early American web gear for years . I also compared the weights to modern gear . Of course your join date tells me all I need to know about this . Let me guess you are a spec 4 ? I have a big fucking idea, because not only did I actually carry this shit on my shoulders for a living, but I'm also a history buff and extensively study military history dating from the ancient period to the modern. You on the other hand no dogshit, because if you did, you sure as shit wouldn't be regurgitating this crap. I don't give a fuck if you hung out at gun shows and collected web gear. You certainly never loaded them up in a combat load, and you don't appear to have a clue what they wore, what they ditched, when they actually fought. Go dig through pics of WWI and WWII soldiers in combat, actually pulling triggers and moving, and you wont find them humping much else besides a helmet, web belt, some grenades, one canteen, some grenades, a rifle, and clothing. Meanwhile, we hump the same stuff, including body armor (30 lbs right there), NODs, radios, batteries, up to three canteens worth of water (which weighs a lot), not to mention M4s with enough shit attached to them that they weigh as much as a loaded Garand. My join date reflects that I was serving my country after 9/11 and didn't have time to join arfcom and correct your sorry ass 14 years ago. Signed, Staff Sergeant, 11 years in the infantry in the USMC and Army, with a BA in History (cum laud) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:11:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Average male height in the USA today is 5'10" In 1912, it was 5'8" http://i.imgur.com/nwCPryK.jpg source: Durrell’s School Algebra (1912) In 1776, it was 5'8" http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/15/garden/american-men-of-1776-said-to-have-stood-tall.html Interestingly, the average height dropped a bit between 1776 and 1900. The drop can be attributed to the environmental conditions resulting from industrialism in the late 19th century, coupled with the influx of (shorter) immigrants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be Average male height in the USA today is 5'10" In 1912, it was 5'8" http://i.imgur.com/nwCPryK.jpg source: Durrell’s School Algebra (1912) In 1776, it was 5'8" http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/15/garden/american-men-of-1776-said-to-have-stood-tall.html Interestingly, the average height dropped a bit between 1776 and 1900. The drop can be attributed to the environmental conditions resulting from industrialism in the late 19th century, coupled with the influx of (shorter) immigrants. Diet had more to do with it. Not industrialization. Poor immigrants who were undernourished also a big factor |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:13:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a fairly recent thing. Prior to 2001/2003 timeframe there were no plates and plate carriers... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be and carrying heavier equipment compared to todays technology False. Infantry carries much heavier shit these days. Yeah those guys didn't carry shit compared to modern infantry. Just your plates, carrier, and kevlar probably weigh as much as pretty much all the shit those guys shuffled around in on a regular basis. That's a fairly recent thing. Prior to 2001/2003 timeframe there were no plates and plate carriers... When I was a young PFC in the 82nd, we just carried on our person, gas mask, LBE, six magazines, 2 one quart canteens, and butt pack (optional). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:14:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everythjng they had was inferior but you can't seem to absorb that which is amazing. Your uniform not only weighs less it wicks moisture better a dis more resistant to damage. It's called technology. Your IBA is heavier because regular troops were not issued IBA and FYI the IBA that existed back then was heavier and primitive at best. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is seriously blowing my mind. Can someone please explain how a soldier with no armor, a small amount of ammo, a rifle without an optic or ir, no kevlar with nvg bullshit on it, no ifak, no radio, and one canteen can possibly be carrying heavier stuff? WHERE IS IT? are their pants lined with lead? Oh their clothes got wet and muddy? I guess my cammies were defective because they still got wet in water and carried more mud than I thought possible. The guys saying modern shit is lighter probably never used any of it. Am I right? Everythjng they had was inferior but you can't seem to absorb that which is amazing. Your uniform not only weighs less it wicks moisture better a dis more resistant to damage. It's called technology. Your IBA is heavier because regular troops were not issued IBA and FYI the IBA that existed back then was heavier and primitive at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:15:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to ask, are you including the weight of body armor, batteries, NV, spare MG ammo and all the other crap a 21st century soldier gets saddled with? Because I can see the individual pieces of gear (rucksack, beltkit, etc) being lighter, but once it's all filled with stuff I really cant see how the WWI soldier was more heavily burdened on a daily basis (i.e, with stuff he was expected to have on his person during combat/patrol) than his 21st century equivalent. I'm not military, and I have no dog in this fight, as it were. But I'm looking at these photos (and other photos from the trenches) and I don't see soldiers carry 60-80 pounds of stuff every single day. And if you read what I said in my very first reply on the subject . I absolutely said the modern soldier carriers more gear . It's pretty simple yet there are a ton of people who cannot grasp the fact Everythjng they used was not only heavier it was shittier . Imagine digging your issue uniforms out of a giant pile of shit not sorted by size and hoping you got fitting clothing then having to go around and trade with fellow soldiers for clothing till you had a useable uniform . They also dealt rations which were total shit and bad quality. As the equipment has gotten lighter and tech has progressed , soldiers have been able to carry more equipment it's an age old cycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:15:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Currently listening to Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon. These photos are incredible! Thanks! That's a fantastic series. The first hand accounts will give you chills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:20:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was a young PFC in the 82nd, we just carried on our person, gas mask, LBE, six magazines, 2 one quart canteens, and butt pack (optional). Same for me, when you weight that on a scale it will not weigh as much as a mills belt with 100 rounds on strippers , two metal canteens and covers, a 16 inch Springfield bayonet , first aid pouch and their gas mask. We rarely wore flak vest . |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
