User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:48:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody went to all the time and effort to colorize those pictures and messed it up so bad. All the leather is the same color everybody's uniform matches the shading of all the others in the picture, everything is new and clean. Looks crappy and gives a false impression. Also, no dicks appear to have been drawn on anything, so obviously not real soldiers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:49:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryNot 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 ? Well you must be the guy in headquarters Marine Corps that decided I needed to carry the metric shit ton of stuff that I get issued. I weigh 225, around 300 with rifle, plate carrier ( front, back, side plates), helmet, water. That's with 556 and 40mm, not even close if I'm supporting machinegunners or mortarmen. When you have to lay on the ground and have two buddies pull you up, you're carrying fucking heavy gear. How bout you strap on a ruck and join my platoon on a ruck before you get your info from the Internet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:50:53 PM EDT
[#3]
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 Lincoln had Marfan's, and all those guys appear to be between 5 10 and 6 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:51:28 PM EDT
[#4]
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 ? Well you must be the guy in headquarters Marine Corps that decided I needed to carry the metric shit ton of stuff that I get issued. I weigh 225, around 300 with rifle, plate carrier ( front, back, side plates), helmet, water. That's with 556 and 40mm, not even close if I'm supporting machinegunners or mortarmen. When you have to lay on the ground and have two buddies pull you up, you're carrying fucking heavy gear. How bout you strap on a ruck and join my platoon on a ruck before you get your info from the Internet? Are you really the mayor of titty city? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:54:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s762.photobucket.com/user/ratjaw/media/For%20Fun/image_zpsd2fa2fdf.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx270/ratjaw/For%20Fun/image_zpsd2fa2fdf.jpg</a> 
Thanks for the link OP. Interesting pics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 6:55:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyways the color pictures really help to remember this shit didn't happen all that long ago... Yeah I feel the same way when I see that stuff. It really puts it on a more personal level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 7:06:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you really the mayor of titty city? 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 ? Well you must be the guy in headquarters Marine Corps that decided I needed to carry the metric shit ton of stuff that I get issued. I weigh 225, around 300 with rifle, plate carrier ( front, back, side plates), helmet, water. That's with 556 and 40mm, not even close if I'm supporting machinegunners or mortarmen. When you have to lay on the ground and have two buddies pull you up, you're carrying fucking heavy gear. How bout you strap on a ruck and join my platoon on a ruck before you get your info from the Internet? Are you really the mayor of titty city? Yep. No term limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 7:26:05 PM EDT
[#8]
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. We aren't arguing if modern equipment is better. We are talking about the weight of a modern infantrymens shit to back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 7:33:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. lol, I saw that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 7:47:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread delivers. It sure do. I thought it was about colorized WWI photos but apparently it's a couple guys arguing about who can take a bigger load. May the best man win! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 8:09:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 8:56:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not the account that needed locked, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:01:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm guessing you weren't 11 series. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. I'm guessing he wasn't any series. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:04:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. Da fuq do you know about WW1 body armor? I bet you were a 71 series, if you even served. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:04:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not the account that needed locked, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. No, in fact that's bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:12:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not the account that needed locked, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:27:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Da fuq do you know about WW1 body armor? I bet you were a 71 series, if you even served. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. Da fuq do you know about WW1 body armor? I bet you were a 71 series, if you even served. Having seen several of his videos from deployments, I can assure you that you are wrong. 92W (if my Google is correct) Said he joined up because of his favorite movie, In the army now, starring his childhood hero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:31:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having seen several of his videos from deployments, I can assure you that you are wrong. 92W (if my Google is correct) Said he joined up because of his favorite movie, In the army now, starring his childhood hero. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. Da fuq do you know about WW1 body armor? I bet you were a 71 series, if you even served. Having seen several of his videos from deployments, I can assure you that you are wrong. 92W (if my Google is correct) Said he joined up because of his favorite movie, In the army now, starring his childhood hero. Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:33:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having seen several of his videos from deployments, I can assure you that you are wrong. 92W (if my Google is correct) Said he joined up because of his favorite movie, In the army now, starring his childhood hero. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. Da fuq do you know about WW1 body armor? I bet you were a 71 series, if you even served. Having seen several of his videos from deployments, I can assure you that you are wrong. 92W (if my Google is correct) Said he joined up because of his favorite movie, In the army now, starring his childhood hero. Pretty sure dedouin was kidding. I don't know much about ww1 armor though. The big guns were cool though. And I wouldn't say Art LaFleur was the star of in the army now but I think he played an important role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:35:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:37:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Crazy how the color makes it look more like re-enactments than real WW1 pictures. Very cool though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:41:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:46:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your mom was giving me the eye Saturday night. Your dad needs to put her on a leash. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). His mom is one of the greats of our day and age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:48:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Excuse if this has been posted already, here's a great collection of WWI Pics (in black/white), the guy did a great job of assembling and narrating the pics (large size too): World War I in Photos
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:14:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His mom is one of the greats of our day and age. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). His mom is one of the greats of our day and age. Hear that 
We need to see you at a party sometime Nick. And Bettendork, the party got better once you left and your wife came over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 10:24:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.Well depending on the model your Stearman has probably 2-3x the HP as the RE8. And a better wing and flying characteristics. Some Royal Aircraft Factory planes had good characteristics, many did not. quote "The RE8 was intended to become the mainstay of the RFC’s reconnaissance force. Its service debut was far from encouraging and it rapidly gained a reputation as a death trap. Some maintain that the RE8 has been unfairly maligned." I, for about an hour contemplated building a full size replica SPAD13, then quickly found out you don't want to do that. WW1 planes started at about 60hp and ended the war at about 220hp. But we owe a lot of lightweight engine technology to these pioneers of aviation. Whatever you do, do not go to The Vintage Aviator ! Ok, if you do, check the many pics of wings of the planes of this era, they are so thin and lightweight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:05:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Now that everyone has stopped dick stroking and measuring,
A question for the math guys: What was the body weight/gear weight ratio of the old timer combat load compared to today's? This is the only metric that matters because people are bigger and stronger today, due to improved diets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:14:46 PM EDT
[#28]
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 It wasn't all that astonishing back then compared to today. More rare than today due to malnutrition, sure. My great grandmother was born in the late 1800s and she was a 6 footer. I believe her mother was about 6' too. I'm 6'6", and I'm here to say that 6'4" is in no way typical of the average male today, even in an area dominated by German and various northern European genes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 11:52:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. You're an 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. +1 sweet jeebus I've never seen such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 12:22:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
won't be locked for long he will just have a cool down. He is right though. Can't personal attack but otherwise the weights don't compare and the max weight carried breifly isn't what should be focused on but the sustained mission weight. For "sustained" it seems like the numbers we worked up were between 80 and 120ish lbs of gear for a light infantryman on patrol in Afghanistan depending on weapon system and squad gear (CLS bag, detainee crap, litter, etc). Riflemen were on the lower end of the spectrum. Automatic riflemen, gun team guys, and RTO's were towards the higher end. We're talking presence patrol weight there, add staying out for a night or two or going for a week and it starts getting stupid....fast. For our gear guys.... What was the typical "sustained" gear weight for a WWI grunt? I honestly don't know much about it. Just seems like they usually only has a rifle, some ammo, grenades, water, and a small bag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 1:00:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Da fuq do you know about sarcasm? Everything. That's why my reply was also sarcastic. I know what Nick did, and I know he's a pretty cool dude (just needs to stop flirting with my mom on Facebook). Bullshit. Pauly Shore is a national treasure. You wouldn't dare mock him if you understood that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 1:15:39 AM EDT
[#32]
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? I have a Mauser 98K and an M4orgery. Even with an optic and tactical light the M4 is way lighter then the Mauser. Multiple Pounds lighter. 100 rounds of 8mm Mauser weighs way more than 100 rounds of 5.56mm. A plastic canteen is way lighter than a steel canteen, I have carried both, yes I am that old. I am not saying Infantry or sappers carry less weight now than they did before, but I do agree that generally the modern gear is lighter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 1:27:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a Mauser 98K and an M4orgery. Even with an optic and tactical light the M4 is way lighter then the Mauser. Multiple Pounds lighter. 100 rounds of 8mm Mauser weighs way more than 100 rounds of 5.56mm. A plastic canteen is way lighter than a steel canteen, I have carried both, yes I am that old. I am not saying Infantry or sappers carry less weight now than they did before, but I do agree that generally the modern gear is lighter. Piece by piece I'm sure the old gear is heavier. Problem with new "light weight" gear is that you can fit more of it on the soldier and in his ruck. That's how you end up with 100+ lbs of the latest and greatest "light weight" gear for a simple patrol 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 1:34:08 AM EDT
[#34]
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). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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: 2/11/2016 1:41:34 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not the account that needed locked, IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: [personal attack removed - account locked - Paul] Not the account that needed locked, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 2:18:26 AM EDT
[#36]
Really cool, it's amazing how color really changes them.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 2:27:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False, cordura weighs slightly less than canvas, ergo your combat load is lighter. This is a crushing load: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/43/79/12/437912653f29bc35857ee9f2b16f09f6.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/43/79/12/437912653f29bc35857ee9f2b16f09f6.jpg lol, rifle walking stick. Is he an ANA officer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 3:20:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, rifle walking stick. Is he an ANA officer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/43/79/12/437912653f29bc35857ee9f2b16f09f6.jpg lol, rifle walking stick. Is he an ANA officer? It was so heavy he could barely lift it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 8:31:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anybody remember page 1, when this thread was cool? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 8:51:24 AM EDT
[#40]
We are savage beasts. Bob Dylan...when will they ever learn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 9:00:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Cool thread.
Thanks OP |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 9:04:44 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that everyone has stopped dick stroking and measuring, A question for the math guys: What was the body weight/gear weight ratio of the old timer combat load compared to today's? This is the only metric that matters because people are bigger and stronger today, due to improved diets. I'm 5'6" 150 and carry the same load out as everyone else. I hope everyone remembers this bigger and stronger thing when we do the "Could today's generation kick the greatest generations ass?" thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 9:51:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that everyone has stopped dick stroking and measuring, A question for the math guys: What was the body weight/gear weight ratio of the old timer combat load compared to today's? This is the only metric that matters because people are bigger and stronger today, due to improved diets. There were big guys back then just like there are small guys today. Your physical size has no bearing on what you get assigned to carry so that "metric" really doesn't matter much. One of our Javelin guys was 5 foot flat. He carried the same load as everyone else but with a CLU or missile on top of his ruck. I'd imagine a modern equivalent of what a riflemans "combat load" was back then would be: Uniform Helmet M4 with all accessories Chest rig 7 mags (210 rounds) 2 or 3 frags IFAK Assault pack for nods, radio, batteries, water, and a few MRE's Poncho Woobie E tool with carrier Pound for pound that may be lighter, maybe not though (Edited to add: just Googling weights brings that to 55-60lbs). Thats still quite a bit of stuff. Problem is that nobody rolls like that anymore. On top of body armor modern grunts get saddled with so much shit that higher ups think we might need that we can't move nearly as efficiently. We've had to learn how to to accomplish the same infantry tasks with double or triple the fighting load. I tell you what though, patrolling in Afghanistan with the list above would have been a dream.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 9:56:55 AM EDT
[#44]
I don't know shit about what yall are carrying today but those Italian troops carrying those cannons up mountains to fight those Austrians would probably disagree with the modern infantryman who at least has some goat path to walk up. They had ice axes, ropes, big fucking cannons, wheels for said cannons, all their gear, etc.
I don't know if any pics of that operation are posted because I don't click links. I've seen them all before I'm sure and probably wrote a paper or two about some of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:02:22 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know shit about what yall are carrying today but those Italian troops carrying those cannons up mountains to fight those Austrians would probably disagree with the modern infantryman who at least has some goat path to walk up. They had ice axes, ropes, big fucking cannons, wheels for said cannons, all their gear, etc. I don't know if any pics of that operation are posted because I don't click links. I've seen them all before I'm sure and probably wrote a paper or two about some of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:12:29 AM EDT
[#46]
Fun part is, the WW1 guys still carried 60-80 lbs of shit.
They just didn't have as much shit.  Here's a real no shit research article. Here's a period piece from just before WW1 about equipment weights of foot soldiers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:13:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There were big guys back then just like there are small guys today. Your physical size has no bearing on what you get assigned to carry so that "metric" really doesn't matter much. As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:17:57 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There were big guys back then just like there are small guys today. Your physical size has no bearing on what you get assigned to carry so that "metric" really doesn't matter much. As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree. Yeah I guess that was kind of a broad statement. Still, I've seen plenty of small guys with SAWs and big guys who are riflemen...lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:20:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There were big guys back then just like there are small guys today. Your physical size has no bearing on what you get assigned to carry so that "metric" really doesn't matter much. As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree. As a short guy in a mixed gender unit, I don't agree either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 10:22:07 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I guess that was kind of a broad statement. Still, I've seen plenty of small guys with SAWs and big guys who are riflemen...lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There were big guys back then just like there are small guys today. Your physical size has no bearing on what you get assigned to carry so that "metric" really doesn't matter much. As a big tall guy who was in a weapons company, I do not agree. Yeah I guess that was kind of a broad statement. Still, I've seen plenty of small guys with SAWs and big guys who are riflemen...lol. But yea, just the way you said that was funny.
 "You're a big fucker, take this" is a thing I heard a lot. |
|
|
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.
