Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody carried more than 75 lbs, much less than 150 lbs, where I was at.
One and a half gallons of water @ 12 lbs. (sometimes I carried two gallons)
M-16 @ 8 lbs.
32 magazines @ 3/4 lbs each = 24 lbs
4 smokes @ 1 lb each -2 lbs
Poncho liner = 4 lbs (total guess on my part)
C Rations = 3 lbs (about)
Medical kit = 12 lbs (I was a medic so was spared carrying extra ammo since I had the medical kit)
Claymore mine = 2 lbs
Webbing = 5 lbs
Personal junk = 5 lbs
Total = 65 lbs and most of that was water and ammo. 65 lbs was plenty enough.
If we weren't going to be gone long or it was the cooler season we would drop water to two or three canteens instead of the bladder bags.
I don't know what kind of unit you were in, where or when, but I served with 2/1 Inf, 196th Light Infantry BDE in I Corps of Vietnam in 1970-71 and we routinely carried more weight than that. Our operations would typically last for 2-3 weeks (sometimes longer) and we had to carry everything we might need.
During the dry season in the Que Son Moutains, I was carrying the machinegun and my total load, which included a LOT of water, exceeded 120 lbs just after re-supply. Of course, that would diminish over time, but re-supply re-loaded the ruck sack.
Troops today still carry the same basic load PLUS body armor. I don't know how they do it.
I don't know what kind of unit you were in, where or when, but I served with 2/1 Inf, 196th Light Infantry BDE in I Corps of Vietnam in 1970-71 and we routinely carried more weight than that. Our operations would typically last for 2-3 weeks (sometimes longer) and we had to carry everything we might need.
During the dry season in the Que Son Moutains, I was carrying the machinegun and my total load, which included a LOT of water, exceeded 120 lbs just after re-supply. Of course, that would diminish over time, but re-supply re-loaded the ruck sack.
Troops today still carry the same basic load PLUS body armor. I don't know how they do it.
No Kidding. In addition to the "winners" who get to carry the M60's, some guys hump SAW's, Commo gear, Radios, MG belts, laser designators, etc. The real lucky ones get to carry the 60mm mortar - particularly the base plate. Plus, as you mentioned, body armour and also the new camelbacks that carry what, 2.5-5 gallons of water?
Now that's good humpin' right there! Especialy in the mid east at 110 degrees plus. Makes me want to pass out just thinking about it!
Last edited by OC Investor2; 06-30-2009 at 11:47 PM..
Elegant violence, yes that about sums it up as they thump seven bells out of each other.
Could you see yourself at 120LB mixing with males on a rugby field in the type of games shown ?
Now rugby is part of training, so should women be required to take part in the game with the men no matter how many women get injured ?
I don't know what kind of unit you were in, where or when, but I served with 2/1 Inf, 196th Light Infantry BDE in I Corps of Vietnam in 1970-71 and we routinely carried more weight than that. Our operations would typically last for 2-3 weeks (sometimes longer) and we had to carry everything we might need.
During the dry season in the Que Son Moutains, I was carrying the machinegun and my total load, which included a LOT of water, exceeded 120 lbs just after re-supply. Of course, that would diminish over time, but re-supply re-loaded the ruck sack.
Troops today still carry the same basic load PLUS body armor. I don't know how they do it.
I was with the 1/18th First Infantry Divsion with most of our operations north of Saigon. Water was everywhere but not a drop to drink.
I do wonder if any politicians around the world who believe this is a good idea have ever served in the infantry.
Some of them must have the strange idea that infantry tasks can be gender normed.
Female, want to be in the infantry, easy, first can you carry 150LB when you are in the mortar platoon of the support company ?
Unfair, yep it is surprising just how unfair the physical side of being a grunt is.
This bloke sums it up well, women are too small and too delicate on average to be in the infantry.
Believe you are up to it, okay grab a bag and a half of cement, put the full bag on your back, carry the half bag on your front.
Now you have about 140LB of weight on.
Okay now spend a week carting that weight around, then ask the question, can a grunt's job be gender normed ?
I don't get you. You start one post opposed to women serving in the infantry and another against US "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military. I see them both as similar problems. Both issues (women in the infantry and gays openly serving in the military) can cause sever discipline problems within the unit. I am not saying that a woman can't serve in the infantry. I have meet many military women more physically fit than some infantry men. But you can't tell me that it would have no different impact to see a woman get wounded in combat than a man. Men naturally want to protect women. Just my opinion. No more or less valid than any of the others presented so far.
But, the problem is that Light Infantry, which includes just about every unit now except those rifle battalions in the 1AD and 1IN, don't have enough vehicles to carry everything. That's why they're called, "light." Ironically, that results in the troops having to carry heavier loads than their mechanized "heavy" counterparts.
Yes, in Iraq and in some scenarios in Afghanistan, they have additional vehicles assigned, that is not always the case as is not part of the TOE equipment, so an Infantryman MUST be prepared to carry as much as 120+ lbs of gear in temperatures which may exceed 120.
Additionally, even though the Iraq war is still vehicle intensive, that is not the case in Afghanistan where foot patrols in the mountains can last quite some time.
Thanks for the reply. However, this type of reply gives me the perception that I can provide and answer to the points you bring up but you will find an answer why women should not be in the infantry units. I have dealt with a lot of people in my last 31 years of service that will come up with reasons why not.
I will just summarize it this way with a question.
I do agree that in general terms women cannot take the rigors of the infantry duty. However, those rigors can be changed with changes in strategy, techology, etc. but some people do not want to do that. That would be the smart thing to do because then we would have more people available to direct combat.
However, as I said, put all that to the side.
The question is:
Would you be willing to allow women that qualify to endure the demands of the infantry field?
My answer? Yes. If you tell me all the reasons why they should not, to me the perception is that you are against women doing such job. You deny them the opportunity to defend their country as they wish just as man do and that is not equal opportunity to everbody to pursue their dreams.
Thanks for the reply. However, this type of reply gives me the perception that I can provide and answer to the points you bring up but you will find an answer why women should not be in the infantry units. I have dealt with a lot of people in my last 31 years of service that will come up with reasons why not.
I will just summarize it this way with a question.
I do agree that in general terms women cannot take the rigors of the infantry duty. However, those rigors can be changed with changes in strategy, techology, etc. but some people do not want to do that. That would be the smart thing to do because then we would have more people available to direct combat.
However, as I said, put all that to the side.
The question is:
Would you be willing to allow women that qualify to endure the demands of the infantry field?
My answer? Yes. If you tell me all the reasons why they should not, to me the perception is that you are against women doing such job. You deny them the opportunity to defend their country as they wish just as man do and that is not equal opportunity to everbody to pursue their dreams.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
If I tell you no, I don't think women should serve in the Infantry, your "perception" of my position would be obvious, wouldn't it?
And, by the way, strategy isn't an issue; tactics are and that's dictated by conditions on the ground. You can't arbitrarily apply a pre-conceived set of programs onto every situation and expect to be successful. Devising a set of tactics which would allow women to be grunts sounds fine on paper, but it won't work in the real world of combat, not if you intend to win.
As for more technology? What technology is available to keep Joe Snuffy from having to kick in doors and kill the enemy face to face? In case you don't know, that's what the Infantry does and always have. Nobody yet has come up with a way to prevent having the Infantry do what the Infantry does. They've tried, Lord knows they've tried to the tune of billions of dollars but, at the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for a guy with a rifle in his hand.
Thanks for the reply. However, this type of reply gives me the perception that I can provide and answer to the points you bring up but you will find an answer why women should not be in the infantry units. I have dealt with a lot of people in my last 31 years of service that will come up with reasons why not.
I will just summarize it this way with a question.
I do agree that in general terms women cannot take the rigors of the infantry duty. However, those rigors can be changed with changes in strategy, techology, etc. but some people do not want to do that. That would be the smart thing to do because then we would have more people available to direct combat.
However, as I said, put all that to the side.
The question is:
Would you be willing to allow women that qualify to endure the demands of the infantry field?
My answer? Yes. If you tell me all the reasons why they should not, to me the perception is that you are against women doing such job. You deny them the opportunity to defend their country as they wish just as man do and that is not equal opportunity to everbody to pursue their dreams.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
I'll answer your question. The answer is no. Why? The number of women who could withstand the rigors of infantry life is so small that disrupting the small unit dynamic that has carried men thru battle since the time of the phalanx to accomodate that small number is not worth it.
It is the job of Infantry units to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat, not be a Make-a-Wish dream granters for a small number of hard charging, physically tough females.
Skillit raised many germane arguments and you seem to be brushing them all off as narrow-minded discrimination. There is no strategy, tactic or other aid that would compensate for an infantry soldier who could not ruck up, move out and vigourouly engage the enemy - in hand to hand combat if neccesary. The weapons may have changed but the basic role of an infantry soldier is no different then it has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
I don't get you. You start one post opposed to women serving in the infantry and another against US "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military. I see them both as similar problems. Both issues (women in the infantry and gays openly serving in the military) can cause sever discipline problems within the unit. I am not saying that a woman can't serve in the infantry. I have meet many military women more physically fit than some infantry men. But you can't tell me that it would have no different impact to see a woman get wounded in combat than a man. Men naturally want to protect women. Just my opinion. No more or less valid than any of the others presented so far.
People get confused with physical fitness it seems.
When I see soldiers running in sandshoes i have to ask is that what you will be wearing in a combat area.
Now by physical fitness you are saying these woman have the capability to carry the same or greater loads than a infantry soldier ?
I will not see sixty again but I would happily have a foot race against any woman if we were both carrying what we carted in the mortar platoon.
That is around 150 LB
Unfair because I am 6' 3'' and 250 lb ?
That is the point I am making, arguing that women have the ability to go bayonet to bayonet against any male is the same as arguing that ALL sports should be unisex.
Now I do not hear any calls for all sports in the military to be made unisex, why is that ?
If I tell you no, I don't think women should serve in the Infantry, your "perception" of my position would be obvious, wouldn't it?
And, by the way, strategy isn't an issue; tactics are and that's dictated by conditions on the ground. You can't arbitrarily apply a pre-conceived set of programs onto every situation and expect to be successful. Devising a set of tactics which would allow women to be grunts sounds fine on paper, but it won't work in the real world of combat, not if you intend to win.
As for more technology? What technology is available to keep Joe Snuffy from having to kick in doors and kill the enemy face to face? In case you don't know, that's what the Infantry does and always have. Nobody yet has come up with a way to prevent having the Infantry do what the Infantry does. They've tried, Lord knows they've tried to the tune of billions of dollars but, at the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for a guy with a rifle in his hand.
Still, the bottom line lies on this question:
If a woman qualifies by meeting the standards to be an infantry Soldier, do you agree she be allowed to be one?
Very simple: Yes or No.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ladies a question ?
