Combat Over-Loadout: Burden Mitigation

​I can not tell you how important it is to make sure that your combat loadout is logical to your mission. In the past, I have written about my feeling towards body armor, universal loadouts, etc. In this article, I want to talk to you about mitigating the burden of your loadout in order to increase your chances of survival and mission success. I will toss in a few anecdotes and links so you can get a better idea of what I am talking about. The moral of the story is to REALLY consider your mission and be honest with yourself about each item and its necessity. 

WEAPON CONFIGURATION

​Throughout history, warriors have had to carry loads exceeding 50 pounds on a regular basis. Technological increases were made that intended to lighten the soldiers load, but has only further increased it. Think about the change from 7.62 to 5.56 for example. A lighter bullet allows more ammunition to be carried, less recoil for faster fire, and lighter weapons. However, the lighter ammunition caused less damage, resulting in more rounds needed for the lighter weapons resulted in them being able to host technology such as sights, lasers, and lights, only bringing the weight higher than the 7.62 rifles we left. My M16A4 in Afghanistan weighed about 12LB with 8.5LB loaded, and the extra weight coming from a PEQ 16, cleaning kit in the stock, Sling, and grip bipod. Just for reference, my fully loaded Tavor 7 with sling, sight, and detachable weapon light weighs 12.5LB-13LB. The difference is that I can have nearly the same capacity, better weight distribution and handling, similar capability at night, and greater ballistic effectiveness with minimal increase in recoil. I am not saying that you should lighten your weapon just for the sake of keeping a number low, but rather you should weigh the logic of each accessory for the mission.

BODY ARMOR MADNESS

​This is a sticky issue for a lot of people since the idea of armor is protection. I understand that concern, but I will tell you that it can be more of a hindrance that a help. It lowers speed, agility and awareness, increases pulmonary stress, and increases visibility and reaction times, and increases core temperature. The problem here is that it is worn religiously and universally as a means to always provide troops with maximum protection no matter the situation. It is an investment to be able to say that you are as protected as possible at all times. However, that protection tends to increase your vulnerability, and there are many cases showing that armor does not really help prevent mortal wounds since oblique hits are more common that straight on hits. The theory doesn’t really match reality since the idea is that the aim is to protect against a hit center-mass, but with hits usually missing their target, other vital structures are hit instead. For moving, your lower speed makes you an easier target. The only exception is when contact with an armed threat is imminent and/or there is little mobility such as clearing houses, being vehicle mobile, or conducting direct action raids such as many SF units do when going after HVTs. I can tell you that armor is a feel-good solution for government, but still left me feeling vulnerable, particularly when running for my life slower than I wanted or needed to. So, my point is that if your mission is one of recon, or keeping the enemy on the defense through fire and maneuver, it would be a good idea to shelf the extra protection and substitute it with a wiser tactical response or approach. Speed, marksmanship, and tactical cunning can do wonders to protect you. But as I said, if you are in close quarters or intending to be, your speed won’t help you much, so armoring up is a good choice.

AMMUNITION WASTES

​I have often heard and read the ammunition buys you time in combat. This is true, but it is relative to how that ammunition is being employed. For instance, if you know anything about LRRP units in Vietnam, they famously traded food and certain supplies for ammo. The reason some of these guys carried 1000 rounds for their M16/CAR15 was because the jungle solution to incoming fire from an unseen enemy is to spray/sweep the general area with full auto fire. Of course, if seen, the idea was concentrated bursts. Think about how fast 30 rounds can go at a rate of 850 rounds per minute/14 rounds a second. Add to that the need for maintaining that fire as long as it takes to get the hell out of dodge. Hell, I would say “fuck that” to adding food if I could add more ammo in its place. What is a day without food compared to running out of ammo? The tactics in the jungles of Vietnam seem to have stayed consistent to today where many soldiers and Marines are on video firing in the general area of the enemy with little regard for ammo conservation, resulting in them being low on ammo in as little as 5 minutes into contact. Conversely, many units, like my own, rarely go through even half their ammo when competently engaging the enemy with enough to work, and with minimal excess. It is shown that when results are the focus, less ammo is needed overall. I literally managed to get along happily in a kinetic environment for 6 hours at a time carrying 6 mags and only using up to 4 mags a few times. This is because of the number of people, good leadership and target acquisition, but also because ammo conservation and accuracy were enforced. Even today, we tend to over-do-it in the armed response arena if left to our own devices. Shooting is not only fun, but excessive responses satisfy that need to “get back” at the enemy who has just made it personal for you.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. We alter ammo weight and we keep illogical engagement tactics that burn more ammo than necessary. Don’t make this mistake. If you are only going on a contact patrol with a deadline of 2 hours, bring enough to fuck up the enemy and enough to go past that time by an hour or two, but no more. If your goal is to unload a mag at the enemy and scoot, you should be satisfied with a modest load of 3 or 4 mags in case your situation degrades, not 6-10. Less weight equals more speed, and speed will be your best security if evading. However, if on a recon patrol where you will likely have a pursuing enemy force in close pursuit for at least 30 minutes until support arrives, you might want at least 12 mags, if not more. Mission and situation dictates these types of things.

WATER & FOOD EXCESS

​Let us look at water and food. I think it is a good idea to have munchies and fluids on a patrol, but my experience is that when you are busy, water goes by the wayside. The threat of dehydration is real, but studies have shown that drinking when you are not thirsty leads to dangerous vitamin depletion. The military trend of constant hydration and unnecessary water intake only increases vitamin depletion rates. Your body can end up growing dependent on water and food through adapting to the forces intake, resulting in a hindrance to perform your mission and only increasing your weight since you need to lug around food and fluids which you will force into yourself throughout your mission instead of contributing or furthering your mission. I am not saying that water and food are the enemy, but I will say that you should only drink water when you are thirsty or getting a dry mouth. This merely means a swig at a time. But I would also advise you to adopt this philosophy during regular exercise. I personally found that I rarely drank more than 1 1/2 liters in the desert when I was only drinking when thirsty, and rarely ate more than a power bar in an 8-hour time. However, I found myself using 3 liters or more when I was “loading up” unnecessarily just because I thought it was a good idea to preload. This increased my need to urinate and made me hungrier.

FEEL GOOD ITEMS

I will not lie and say that I did not indulge in lugging around feel good items on deployment. I kept letters from home, lots of cigarettes, snacks, and extra rations in my pack when we went out on patrol, just in case we stopped and had down-time. This is not harmful if your loadout is not too extreme, and it can add to your flexibility and fighting ability. In my current loadout, I carry a poncho for shelter, extra chemlights for signaling/deception, electrical tape for tying up loose straps, and 550 cord for repairing laces or constructing a stretcher.

TRAINING FOR THE WORSE CASE

​In some older military manuals, it is mentioned that it is a good idea to train to carry and fight with more weight than you will in combat. This is much akin to the Roman philosophy of training with heavier equipment to build speed, power, and finesse. In this case, I think it is a good idea to train most of the time with a full and almost unnecessary level of gear. I personally adapted to a 70LB loadout to a level where it is not very stressful, though I still notice slower speeds and less mobility. I will note that this training method has greatly increased my speed, endurance, and power when wearing a more realistic loadout that is 10-25 pounds lighter. The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat. But be careful to not apply the brute logic of “adaptation in training means you should apply those loads universally in combat.” Another element to consider is actually practicing to fire at a target with the intent to hit instead of just put rounds on target in order to satisfy your itchy stress finger. Have self control and discipline instead of catering your loadout to your ego.

MORE LOGIC, LESS LOADOUT LUST

​I understand that the normal hype and theory today is that more modern gear and tech increases flexibility. This is mostly true, but it is countered by political decision about protection and enough ammo to live through any “what if” scenario. Add that to the consequences of slower speed, and poor enforcement of accuracy and ammo conservation, and you have yourself a mountain of gear that makes you a tactical no-go. Cater your loads to the mission with logical limits of mission times, and 1.5 times the projected ammo requirement. To me, there is little reason that your loadout needs to exceed 40% of your body weight, even with armor on. This means that 25% is a more optimal and realistic weight when not wearing armor. Refer to my links below to get more information from the studies that were conducted.

​For info on the studies that were conducted on combat loads:

www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-soldiers-heavy-load-1

​www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25644619/soldier-weight/