User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:21:45 PM EDT
[#1]
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. Ignorant you are. First, ALICE is rarely used anymore, we use MOLLE and other sorts of rucks. Secondly, you're getting into sustainment loads, which aren't carried in combat. Third, a Large ALICE ruck can hold every single piece of equipment carried by a WWI soldier, including probably the soldier themselves, and its usually kept full of shit, heavy shit, like ammo, radios, batteries, food, water, which the WWI and WWII soldiers didn't carry on their sustainment load because their issue equipment weren't large enough (by design, to prevent overloading). These dudes are humping a fighting load heavier than anything a WWI or WWII soldier ever carried. They are humping a sustainment load heavier than anything a WWI or WWII soldier ever carried. And they are tranvsersing terrain which in WWII was the domain of only specially trained mountain units, whereas now normal combat arms are doing it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:24:25 PM EDT
[#2]
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. After experimenting the WWII GI rifleman carried only 40 rounds of ammo. His rifle weighed 10 lbs loaded. My M4, with scope, with lasers, with everything attached to it, with a redimag and extra mag, it weighed the same amount. A 30 round mag weighs more than an 8 round or 5 round clip, I carried 10-15 of them, they carried maybe 10 at most. I carried four different types of grenades (frag, flashbang, smoke, FOG), often numerous of each type, they might have carried two (frag and officer's might get a smoke). I carried an MBITR, they had a whistle. I had a helmet, kevlar vest with cod piece, and front, back, side ballistic plates, they had only a helmet. I carried a breaching shotgun on my back, they didn't even carry wire cutters. They carried a bayonet, I carried two different knives (pocket, and sheath). They carried maybe a map, I carried a map, compass, protractor, GPS, mission notes, and a dozen different laminated GTAs (nine line, call for fire, ROEs, language, etc.). They carried one canteen, I carried at least two, if not more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:26:49 PM EDT
[#3]
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? The greatcoat would absorb a fuckton more water than anything in modern service. IIRC a study was made of French soldiers coming out of the line at Verdun, one guy's greatcoat weighed 80 pounds. 50 was not abnormal. They weigh a lot dry but not THAT much. Modern equipment is much lighter item-for-item. The rifle is lighter. The ammo is lighter. The LBE is lighter. The helmet is lighter. Then they add shit to the rifle until it weighs more. Then they make the soldier carry more ammo. Then they hang more shit off the LBE. Hang shit off the helmet. Add armor, add comm gear, oh look there's some space on that guy let's hang a TOW off him... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:27:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:30:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:31:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you were a pogue in peace time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. Oh snap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:33:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you were a pogue in peace time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. Yeah I guess Just Cause and Desert Storm don't count cause of millennial feels and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:38:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Right back atcha. That shit wasn't general issue. The German armor came close, it was available through the normal supply chains, but it was never intended as anything but added protection in fixed sentry positions. Lots of stuff was available mail order. You'll find all manner of fun shit showing up in the trenches that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:38:33 PM EDT
[#9]
I love discussions like this, you usually see them in the ww2 community instead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:39:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Link History note First World War period German Army body armour of the type initially issued to front line troops in 1916. The equipment weighed between 20lbs and 24lbs (9kg and 11kg), reflecting the two variant sizes produced; 500,000 The Imperial War Museum: First tried in battle in 1915 body armour was, as far as British usage were concerned, used mainly on an individual basis as it never became a universal issue (it is understood that only enough body armour was available to equip 2% of the army). Of the types used by British personnel, there were three main categories: Rigid ‘hard’ armour (often comprising of metal plates sandwiched between fabric and worn as a vest or waistcoat); Intermediate armour (various forms of small square plates of metal attached to a canvas support to form a protective waistcoat); Soft armour (made of layers of silk/cotton/tissue & linen scraps sandwiched in fabric waistcoat). A modern OTV with front/back and side plates weighs 30 lbs. That is without an IFAK, mag pouches, radio pouch, grenade pouches, camelbak, and utility pouches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:41:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Daylight Body shields? Were those the ones they forgot to issue out at Normandy? That almost got used during Caen? That nearly made it to the front line for Market Garden? Yeah, sounds like something everyone was issues, google a pic of a WWII brit infantryman and you'll find him wearing a daylight body shield, right? Oh wait... Was body armor standard issue in WWII? Nope, bomber crews wore it and the only army that even issued body armor to infantry were the fucking Soviets, and they did in small numbers only. The rest got a helmet and Mk 1 skin to stop fragments and bullets. Your'e a tard and clearly a wannabee who has to collect militaria in order to think you have a clue what combat veterans are telling you. I don't care if your collectable pokemon web gear feels light in your arms compared to the canvas equipment from 1914, as soon as you put a full combat load inside everything that mimics what is carried then and now, the modern stuff stops being light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:43:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I guess Just Cause and Desert Storm don't count cause of millennial feels and all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. Yeah I guess Just Cause and Desert Storm don't count cause of millennial feels and all. Bull fucking shit, because I guarantee you never lived out of an ALICE pack with a combat load, nor did you ever carry an infantryman's combat load. You are a fucking pogue. Judging by how retarded your posts are are I doubt you had the GT to make anything close to combat arms. Supply, cook, admin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:44:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you were a pogue in peace time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. I was a pogue in peacetime?? I may have started out on peacetime, but that has nothing to do with it. Look up the history of the 82nd from 1992 on to present day. We may have been at peace during the early 90's but far from actually being at peace. We regularly trained for war. We also went on real world missions while I was assigned to the 82nd. Panama, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few places. Other battalions did far more than mine. Our fighting load was considerably less than today's but our sustainment load was just as heavy. Like I said, I may have started out in peacetime, but I retired in 2014. I have experience with the evolution from ALICE gear to todays MOLLE gear. I also have experience with actually fighting in both. The LBE although light and maneuverable did not offer the protection of body armor. Given the choice, I would rather have the LBE for combat operations than running around in 40lbs of extra gear on the off chance that I take a round to the chest because it still left alot of body area exposed. It was far easier to move quickly from cover to cover in the LBE than the body armor. I was faster and more nimble in the LBE and could get behind cover, get on the ground, get up and move. When fighting in the body armor, I felt like a lumbering rhinoceros. I'm not saying having body armor is a bad thing at all. There are hundreds of our Soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that are alive today because of it. To me, it's just 40lbs of gear that is in the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:45:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bull fucking shit, because I guarantee you never lived out of an ALICE pack with a combat load, nor did you ever carry an infantryman's combat load. You are a fucking pogue. Judging by how retarded your posts are are I doubt you had the GT to make anything close to combat arms. Supply, cook, admin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. Yeah I guess Just Cause and Desert Storm don't count cause of millennial feels and all. Bull fucking shit, because I guarantee you never lived out of an ALICE pack with a combat load, nor did you ever carry an infantryman's combat load. You are a fucking pogue. Judging by how retarded your posts are are I doubt you had the GT to make anything close to combat arms. Supply, cook, admin. If you say so Dave_A |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:48:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you say so Dave_A You know he's still a member, right? I'm guessing he spanked your ass once or twice too. Not hard, you keep posting and eventually everyone will do it and your dumb ass will think everyone is Dave_A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:50:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know he's still a member, right? I'm guessing he spanked your ass once or twice too. Not hard, you keep posting and eventually everyone will do it and your dumb ass will think everyone is Dave_A. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you say so Dave_A You know he's still a member, right? I'm guessing he spanked your ass once or twice too. Not hard, you keep posting and eventually everyone will do it and your dumb ass will think everyone is Dave_A. Your join date is late I think he was banned before that, and your posts are just like his. Young know it all who has been there and done that but not really . Let me guess you are in some sort of maintenance MOS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:54:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was a pogue in peacetime?? I may have started out on peacetime, but that has nothing to do with it. Look up the history of the 82nd from 1992 on to present day. We may have been at peace during the early 90's but far from actually being at peace. We regularly trained for war. We also went on real world missions while I was assigned to the 82nd. Panama, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few places. Other battalions did far more than mine. Our fighting load was considerably less than today's but our sustainment load was just as heavy. Like I said, I may have started out in peacetime, but I retired in 2014. I have experience with the evolution from ALICE gear to todays MOLLE gear. I also have experience with actually fighting in both. The LBE although light and maneuverable did not offer the protection of body armor. Given the choice, I would rather have the LBE for combat operations than running around in 40lbs of extra gear on the off chance that I take a round to the chest because it still left alot of body area exposed. It was far easier to move quickly from cover to cover in the LBE than the body armor. I was faster and more nimble in the LBE and could get behind cover, get on the ground, get up and move. When fighting in the body armor, I felt like a lumbering rhinoceros. I'm not saying having body armor is a bad thing at all. There are hundreds of our Soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that are alive today because of it. To me, it's just 40lbs of gear that is in the way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. I was a pogue in peacetime?? I may have started out on peacetime, but that has nothing to do with it. Look up the history of the 82nd from 1992 on to present day. We may have been at peace during the early 90's but far from actually being at peace. We regularly trained for war. We also went on real world missions while I was assigned to the 82nd. Panama, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few places. Other battalions did far more than mine. Our fighting load was considerably less than today's but our sustainment load was just as heavy. Like I said, I may have started out in peacetime, but I retired in 2014. I have experience with the evolution from ALICE gear to todays MOLLE gear. I also have experience with actually fighting in both. The LBE although light and maneuverable did not offer the protection of body armor. Given the choice, I would rather have the LBE for combat operations than running around in 40lbs of extra gear on the off chance that I take a round to the chest because it still left alot of body area exposed. It was far easier to move quickly from cover to cover in the LBE than the body armor. I was faster and more nimble in the LBE and could get behind cover, get on the ground, get up and move. When fighting in the body armor, I felt like a lumbering rhinoceros. I'm not saying having body armor is a bad thing at all. There are hundreds of our Soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that are alive today because of it. To me, it's just 40lbs of gear that is in the way. I wasn't replying to you, not quoting you. I had no say whatsoever in wearing 90% of the crap I carried, its just what modern war is now. There were many missions I wish I could have dropped the side plates. Or even dropped all the plates, and the kevlar panels inside. But C'est La Vie. Times have changed, body armor is mandatory because of CYA risk assessment focused commanders, better technology means they can load us down with more tech stuff, all of which needs batteries. Radios are lighter, so me make up for it by carrying more of them, or more of something else. Firepower is the name of the game, so we are overloaded with ammo of all sorts to prevent any possibility of going black. In WWI and WWII they didn't need to carry that much because grunts were expendable and no unit would fight long term to expend the amount of ammo we carry, they'd be rendered combat ineffective long before. Often we can't trust resupply, we aren't getting relieved by anyone, so we hump in everything we might need, worst case scenario, instead of what we actually need, based on a realistic expectation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 2:55:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Now it's a party.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:02:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
tagged Quote History+1 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:03:32 PM EDT
[#21]
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:03:39 PM EDT
[#22]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11006139/Inventories-of-war-soldiers-kit-from-1066-to-2014.html?frame=2994148
This is a pictorial layout of individual layouts. Slide #1 is WWI, Slide #13 is British Falklands, Slide #14 is Modern British. Hands down modern soldiers carry far too much! British webgear and uniforms of WWI was for the time VERY well thought out. Their load bearing systems were initially based off of recent combat experience in the Boer Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_uniform_and_equipment_in_World_War_I Modern equipment is better. WWI and WWII equipment sucks. May God curse whoever designed the USGI gear. The Haversack is useless and the cartridge belt suspenders is a tangled hot mess of fail. A couple of one quart canteens suck compared to even a cheap chicom knockoff camelback. Wars are different, soldiers are different. The only constant is the suck that we all go through. Everything we go through sucks. Going to Iraq with ALICE gear sucked (thanks USAF!), but when I got there I could get modern equipment thanks to Army Bros who didn't want things (was there during the changeover from DCU to ACU, so DCU was getting dumped). The battlefields of WWI were brutal but war changes. A modern army wouldn't throw hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of shells into a small area for months at the time. The conditions that resulted in WWI were a set point in history. Tactics changed, equipment changed, and warfare itself changed. Those embryonic tactics were refined and perfected into the carnage of WWII. We look at pics of WWI battlefields and say "f$%k that noise". A WWI vet looking at what we carry and the amount (volume, accuracy, lethality) of firepower an individual soldier carries and would probably say the same. The WWI guy probably put less equipment on pack mules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:06:59 PM EDT
[#23]
This thread delivers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:08:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't replying to you, not quoting you. I had no say whatsoever in wearing 90% of the crap I carried, its just what modern war is now. There were many missions I wish I could have dropped the side plates. Or even dropped all the plates, and the kevlar panels inside. But C'est La Vie. Times have changed, body armor is mandatory because of CYA risk assessment focused commanders, better technology means they can load us down with more tech stuff, all of which needs batteries. Radios are lighter, so me make up for it by carrying more of them, or more of something else. Firepower is the name of the game, so we are overloaded with ammo of all sorts to prevent any possibility of going black. In WWI and WWII they didn't need to carry that much because grunts were expendable and no unit would fight long term to expend the amount of ammo we carry, they'd be rendered combat ineffective long before. Often we can't trust resupply, we aren't getting relieved by anyone, so we hump in everything we might need, worst case scenario, instead of what we actually need, based on a realistic expectation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 . Because you were a pogue in peace time. I was a pogue in peacetime?? I may have started out on peacetime, but that has nothing to do with it. Look up the history of the 82nd from 1992 on to present day. We may have been at peace during the early 90's but far from actually being at peace. We regularly trained for war. We also went on real world missions while I was assigned to the 82nd. Panama, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few places. Other battalions did far more than mine. Our fighting load was considerably less than today's but our sustainment load was just as heavy. Like I said, I may have started out in peacetime, but I retired in 2014. I have experience with the evolution from ALICE gear to todays MOLLE gear. I also have experience with actually fighting in both. The LBE although light and maneuverable did not offer the protection of body armor. Given the choice, I would rather have the LBE for combat operations than running around in 40lbs of extra gear on the off chance that I take a round to the chest because it still left alot of body area exposed. It was far easier to move quickly from cover to cover in the LBE than the body armor. I was faster and more nimble in the LBE and could get behind cover, get on the ground, get up and move. When fighting in the body armor, I felt like a lumbering rhinoceros. I'm not saying having body armor is a bad thing at all. There are hundreds of our Soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that are alive today because of it. To me, it's just 40lbs of gear that is in the way. I wasn't replying to you, not quoting you. I had no say whatsoever in wearing 90% of the crap I carried, its just what modern war is now. There were many missions I wish I could have dropped the side plates. Or even dropped all the plates, and the kevlar panels inside. But C'est La Vie. Times have changed, body armor is mandatory because of CYA risk assessment focused commanders, better technology means they can load us down with more tech stuff, all of which needs batteries. Radios are lighter, so me make up for it by carrying more of them, or more of something else. Firepower is the name of the game, so we are overloaded with ammo of all sorts to prevent any possibility of going black. In WWI and WWII they didn't need to carry that much because grunts were expendable and no unit would fight long term to expend the amount of ammo we carry, they'd be rendered combat ineffective long before. Often we can't trust resupply, we aren't getting relieved by anyone, so we hump in everything we might need, worst case scenario, instead of what we actually need, based on a realistic expectation. This is my experience as well all during my career, even more so as a medic than infantry. Take everything because you might need it because higher ups cant guarantee a re-supply. Carrying a sustainment load of 120+ pounds sucked ass. Our almost-jump into Haiti was nothing but ammo and frags. Personal items were pretty much dumped in favor of taking more ammo and gear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:12:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be I bet a lot of them weren't over 103lb 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:12:11 PM EDT
[#26]
This guy right here!!!!! This guy looks like he was one tough SOB, I would love to be able to sit down and share a meal, a few drinks and get some stories from a guy like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:13:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This guy right here!!!!! This guy looks like he was one tough SOB, I would love to be able to sit down and share a meal, a few drinks and get some stories from a guy like this. http://i.imgur.com/TYayRQx.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:17:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is my experience as well all during my career, even more so as a medic than infantry. Take everything because you might need it because higher ups cant guarantee a re-supply. Carrying a sustainment load of 120+ pounds sucked ass. Our almost-jump into Haiti was nothing but ammo and frags. Personal items were pretty much dumped in favor of taking more ammo and gear. I remember just after the GWOT started drunkingly discussing infantry load management with my 1SG during an NCO call, Operation Anaconda just ended and the AARs were coming out, chief focus was how overloaded those guys were, crushed by the time they left the birds. It never improved. When they lightened the body armor, we carried more weapons. When they lightened the radios, we carried more batteries. When they lightened the weapons, we carried more ammo. The planners that be don't expect us to be mobile, and if they do they don't care that they are crippling a bunch of 20 something year olds for life. Historically, outside of combat, and disease (the biggest killer), soldiering was a very healthy lifestyle. Now, its the surest way to make a 30 year old have the joints and spine of a 70 year old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:19:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He looks like he's the type of guy that would only like to talk witht military guys. Sorry Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This guy right here!!!!! This guy looks like he was one tough SOB, I would love to be able to sit down and share a meal, a few drinks and get some stories from a guy like this. http://i.imgur.com/TYayRQx.png 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 3:55:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your join date is late I think he was banned before that, and your posts are just like his. Young know it all who has been there and done that but not really . Let me guess you are in some sort of maintenance MOS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you say so Dave_A You know he's still a member, right? I'm guessing he spanked your ass once or twice too. Not hard, you keep posting and eventually everyone will do it and your dumb ass will think everyone is Dave_A. Your join date is late I think he was banned before that, and your posts are just like his. Young know it all who has been there and done that but not really . Let me guess you are in some sort of maintenance MOS? Dave_A is back, bro. Just permabanned from GD. https://www.ar15.com/member/member.html?id=24083 https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_15/554571_Released_on__ARFCOM__Parole___.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:07:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He looks like he's the type of guy that would only like to talk witht military guys. Sorry Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This guy right here!!!!! This guy looks like he was one tough SOB, I would love to be able to sit down and share a meal, a few drinks and get some stories from a guy like this. http://i.imgur.com/TYayRQx.png So your saying he wouldn't want to hear any of my CG stories about getting a new laptop? Well then I would fall back on my time in the 11th ACR and 1st Cav Div and talk armored warfare tactics, see what he thought about armor versus his guerrilla warfare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:13:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Grunts carrying heavy shit?
No way. My knees and back still hurt. Fucking green weenie.... "your pack looks empty, have an AT4, some batteries, some 7.62 linked ammo belts, and a 5 gallon water can". FUUUUUUUUUU |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:15:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There was no fucking IBA issued in WWI or WWII. Nobody carried any of that shit. They didn't launch offensives with 70 lb fighting loads, and then 80 lbs sustainment loads. I don't give a fuck if they wore wool, or if the equipment was made of cotton canvas, it didn't soak up anymore weight than a dry combat load weighs now. It doesn't matter if it was inferior, they carried a lot less of everything. You just proved you don't know shit . Go back to school sonny . The Brits issued the dayfield body shield. , and the Germans had an equivalent. Body armor was also issued in WWII what you don't know fills a house . You have inspired me to buy a membership to put you on ignore Dave I think he was the first person I pulled the Ignore Switch on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:34:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Grunts carrying heavy shit? No way. My knees and back still hurt. Fucking green weenie.... "your pack looks empty, have an AT4, some batteries, some 7.62 linked ammo belts, and a 5 gallon water can". FUUUUUUUUUU Wrong, according to sharpshooter, because a super muscular 115 lb, 5'5" midget from WWI carried heavier equipment then you, because wet wool is heavier than wet ceramic plates and kevlar. And a single tin canteen in canvas weighs more than a 3 Lt camelback, plus the 2 qt and 5 gallon jug in your ruck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:38:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Yep. Also, current issued gear sheds water and nobody gets wet anymore
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 4:57:39 PM EDT
[#36]
The last picture...A Lee-Metford and a pith helmet...how very British.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:04:39 PM EDT
[#37]
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. As a contractor in Iraq, my armor and ammo alone was around 45lbs. My backpack with more ammo and water for ne and the dog around 50lbs. Reason why I have had 4 back surgeries probably Didn't help that I was before surgeries6"5 Edit That was just for a "day long" mission Knew guys carrying 130easy |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:09:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He looks like he's the type of guy that would only like to talk witht military guys. Sorry Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This guy right here!!!!! This guy looks like he was one tough SOB, I would love to be able to sit down and share a meal, a few drinks and get some stories from a guy like this. http://i.imgur.com/TYayRQx.png Looks like he's on this board as well........... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:14:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember just after the GWOT started drunkingly discussing infantry load management with my 1SG during an NCO call, Operation Anaconda just ended and the AARs were coming out, chief focus was how overloaded those guys were, crushed by the time they left the birds. It never improved. When they lightened the body armor, we carried more weapons. When they lightened the radios, we carried more batteries. When they lightened the weapons, we carried more ammo. The planners that be don't expect us to be mobile, and if they do they don't care that they are crippling a bunch of 20 something year olds for life. Historically, outside of combat, and disease (the biggest killer), soldiering was a very healthy lifestyle. Now, its the surest way to make a 30 year old have the joints and spine of a 70 year old. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is my experience as well all during my career, even more so as a medic than infantry. Take everything because you might need it because higher ups cant guarantee a re-supply. Carrying a sustainment load of 120+ pounds sucked ass. Our almost-jump into Haiti was nothing but ammo and frags. Personal items were pretty much dumped in favor of taking more ammo and gear. I remember just after the GWOT started drunkingly discussing infantry load management with my 1SG during an NCO call, Operation Anaconda just ended and the AARs were coming out, chief focus was how overloaded those guys were, crushed by the time they left the birds. It never improved. When they lightened the body armor, we carried more weapons. When they lightened the radios, we carried more batteries. When they lightened the weapons, we carried more ammo. The planners that be don't expect us to be mobile, and if they do they don't care that they are crippling a bunch of 20 something year olds for life. Historically, outside of combat, and disease (the biggest killer), soldiering was a very healthy lifestyle. Now, its the surest way to make a 30 year old have the joints and spine of a 70 year old. No shit, I am paying dearly for my time as an Infantry Soldier and Combat Medic. I am only 41 and I have a bad back, knees, ankles, feet hearing loss, and tinnitus. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:28:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The last picture...A Lee-Metford and a pith helmet...how very British. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:30:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Does anybody remember page 1, when this thread was cool?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:31:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Yep. Looks way lighter than WWI loads
Edited to add some terrain pictures from the deployment. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:40:39 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Looks way lighter than WWI loads
<a href="http://s1091.photobucket.com/user/sparky-kb/media/AFG/100_2015_zpsuyix89ca_edit_1455138951776_zpsdq6h7gd4_edit_1455139105894_zpscwqqpbwy.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i394/sparky-kb/AFG/100_2015_zpsuyix89ca_edit_1455138951776_zpsdq6h7gd4_edit_1455139105894_zpscwqqpbwy.jpg</a> <a href="http://s1091.photobucket.com/user/sparky-kb/media/AFG/185774_5795545646_4523_n_zpsl0unstzj_edit_1455138756263_zpshh5k2a02.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i394/sparky-kb/AFG/185774_5795545646_4523_n_zpsl0unstzj_edit_1455138756263_zpshh5k2a02.jpg</a> False, cordura weighs slightly less than canvas, ergo your combat load is lighter. This is a crushing load: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 5:55:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anybody remember page 1, when this thread was cool? Internet egos are a hell of a drug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:01:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anybody remember page 1, when this thread was cool? The thread started out awesome. Thanks OP, I really enjoyed those pics, love historical stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:09:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was wondering what that was! You think Lee-Metford rather than Long Lee-Enfield? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The last picture...A Lee-Metford and a pith helmet...how very British. It could have started out as either. But, you're right. At that point, it would be a Lee-Enfield (Lee-Metford II*). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:14:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Malnutrition is a bitch. Didn't they even reject a lot of WW2 volunteers at first due to it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It always surprises me how small they used to be Malnutrition is a bitch. Didn't they even reject a lot of WW2 volunteers at first due to it? Especially after the Great Depression. IIRC, Jimmy Stewart had to cheat to get in, hid weights on himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:24:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It always amazes me how WWI was so "in your face". It seems like it was entirely a battle of willpower, like boxers slugging it out until the end. https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12234876_768744959936025_466016129212755400_n.jpg Frank Hurley was the photographer. He's pretty famous for his work on Shakleton's trip to the Antarctic. He probably would appreciate the well done colorization though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:24:40 PM EDT
[#49]
LOL my saw gunners load out was around 150 pounds not including an AG pack, day pack , ruck etc...
My 203 load out was round 100. m4 70-80 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:27:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Anyways the color pictures really help to remember this shit didn't happen all that long ago...
|
|
|
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.
