Lawmakers: Soldiers have problems with combat gear

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Breitbart.com/AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - Troops are being sent to war zones without proper training and suitable gear, according to two senior Democratic lawmakers who say they've been told by soldiers about problems ranging from their backpacks to their rifles.

In a Dec. 10 letter to the Pentagon's top leaders, Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Solomon Ortiz, who heads the subcommittee on military readiness, said they are "greatly troubled" by what they learned as the Obama White House begins escalating the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

-----

Soldiers are being issued a rucksack made of plastic that is not comfortable or effective in combat situations, Skelton and Ortiz found during a recent trip to Germany and Italy where they met with members of the 503rd Infantry Regiment and the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

Troops carry heavy loads on their backs and the plastic straps cut off circulation to their hands and arms, "making it virtually impossible to fire their weapons," they told Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

-----

The M4 carbine, a shorter, lighter version of the M16 rifle, was also criticized. Skelton and Ortiz said they've had long-standing concerns with the M4. Those worries mounted after a study by a military historian found the rifle failed at critical moments during a July 2008 firefight in Afghanistan that left nine U.S. soldiers dead.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CK283G0&show_article=1

[truthisfreedom]

1. Greatest nation on earth. Plastic backpacks with sharp plastic straps.

Rifles that choke. Beyond comprehension.

[Arctic Dave]

2. I'm not sure how I should feel about this. We give these fuckers too much already

so what the fuck did they do with all the money?

Someone needs to do an accounting of the DoD books. Sounds nice but it will never happen.



Yeah, fuck em.

[RamboLiberal]

3. Fuck the Pentagon & the bucks they put in to boondoggles

But it's not right that troops or their families have to buy better gear out-of-pocket while we give Citigroup and f'ing 80 Billion tax break!

[Arctic Dave]

5. I guess they fucked when they joined, not my problem, they should have thought it through.

[RamboLiberal]

6. Many of them joined cause they can't get a job in this sucky economy

And I've heard a number of them joined to get health care. I don't blame them. For many it's the military or destitution.

[Arctic Dave]

15. Once again, they should have thought it through.

They pentagon gets more money then they should ever deserve and if they piss it away Im supposed to feel sorry for them.

So too damn bad, they shouldn't get another dime just so our poor poeple can go kill other poor people who pose us no threat.

[dysfunctional press]

22. +1

common ground.

i cannot and will never understand the adulation of the current u.s. military. :shrug:

[Pavulon]

32. Nice to know you are so concerned. So you dont worry to much

the M16 and later M4 I was issued worked just fine. The raggedy m9, not that great. But hey, if I was shooting a pistol in combat, I have bigger problems.

[CreekDog]

10. your statement is an embarassment to yourself

how ridiculous.

[Arctic Dave]

16. Hardly, if anyone should be embarassed it should be the military.

They're the ones who are pissing away their gluttonous budget, not me.

So once again, too bad for them. Think it through better next time.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Donald Rumsfeld: you go to war with the army you have.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don;t we have those resources readily available to us?

Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up.

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time

The man that replaced Rumsfeld at the Pentagon is still there. What is Bob Gates doing about this?

[winyanstaz]

7. These war mongering bastards that send our troops out without the proper gear...

DO NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! They don't give a fuck if American troops live or die obviously...in fact I believe they are trying to keep as many over there until they die that they possibly can.
That illiminates the need for medical care if they return home...not that our returned vets get any healthcare here either........

[DissedByBush]

8. The FN SCAR was just issued to the Rangers

It's better than the M4 in many ways, including fewer stoppages in rough conditions.

Expect it to spread further through the Army in the future if the initial field use looks good.

[happyslug]

17. The problems with the M4/M16 have been known since Vietnam

The M16/M4 is a gas operated selective service weapon. The problem with the M16/M4 is the particular Gas Operating system it uses. Every Gas operating system "bleeds" "gas" from the barrel when that "gas" is produced when a bullet is fired and has passed through the barrel. This "Gas" is then used to to operate the mechanism to put a new round into the chamber. In almost every other Gas operating system the gas pushes on a mechanical mechanism and the mechanism operates the weapon. In the M16/M4 the gas does NOT push on any mechanical leakage, instead it travels in a tube to the bolt and operates the bolts directly. This difference makes the M16/M4 the lightest weapon in its class. The bad news it is the most susceptible to dust and dirt.

Now, we have to be careful, the M16 originally had a problem in its early years in Vietnam. The US Army blamed a changed in Ammunition and "Corrected" that problem. The Army lied, the problem was NOT do to a change in Ammunition but the lack of Chroming the Chamber of the Weapon to minimized build up of ammunition residue. The reason the Army lied was that Changing the Ammunition and issuing Cleaning kits for the M16 was something the Army could do and keep the Weapon in the Field. Chroming the Barrel meant taking the barrel out of service and with the increase in US involvement in Vietnam and the ending of M14 production in 1964 (to be replaced by the M16) the Army did NOT have enough M14s for use in Europe (where the Army had its Largest Commitment) AND shipped them all back to Vietnam (M14 only started in production in 1957, thus you are looking at only 7 years of production, not enough to replace all the weapons in the US army at that time). Thus the Army was looking at replacing the M16 with the WWII era M1, for the US had a lot of M1 in stock and in the hands of the National Guard (Remember we are talking about Vietnam about 1964-1968).

The problems with the M16 reflected that it did NOT come through the normal Army method of developing a new weapon. It had been adopted by the US Air Force in 1959 as a replacement for the M1 Carbine used till then by Air Force Guards. If kept clean is a full usable weapon even without the Chrome Chamber. As Vietnam heated up the US supplied the South Vietnamese Army with M1s, but the South Vietnamese Troops found it to heavy and when offered the M16 took up the offer (Who adopted the M16 first is unclear, the Air Force seems to have officially adopted it first, but the first actual shipments seems to have been to South Vietnam). All of this was without any official US Army Testing (Part of this was the US Army official position that you needed a Full Power Cartridge not the reduced power Cartridges of the AK-47 or M16). This lack of US Army involvement in its development (and the US Army opposition to its development) permitted a rapid adoption of the M16 (For Comparison, the M14 started to be developed while WWII was going on and thus took over 12 years to come into development, the M1 started out in the late 1920s, adopted technically in 1936 but still had bugs being worked out as late as 1940, another 12-15 years of Development with full US Army Support). The M16 started out as a private venture during WWII but real development did not start till the 1950s. In the Middle of the 1950s it was decided to redesign the weapon from the 7.62mm round it had been designed for to the then new 5.56mm round. This seems to have been done about 1958, thus by the time it was adopted in 1964 it had only about six years in development and almost NO actual Field testing by actual troops. AS a radical design this was its biggest problem and a problem NEVER quite resolved.

Anyway, the M16 has been popular with troops that can keep it clean and operating. Those troops who do NOT live in Barracks, who operate is "adverse" areas areas for months at a time learn to hate the M16 and prefer the heavier and easier to operate in mud and dust AK-47. The chief reason the AK-47 is more reliable is that the designer made sure he left plenty of space between the parts that dirt and mud could seep through and the as operating system operated via a leakage (and that the Chamber was Chromed lined).

The M16 and AK-47 shows both ends of the compromises needed to have an effective weapon. The M16's weaknesses reflect the desire to make it as light as possible (Even at the cost of needing careful cleaning). The Ak's weaknesses reflect the desire for a reliable weapon even at the cost of extra weight. Given the same ammunition the Mechanism for the M16 will be the lightest Assault Rifle, the AK-47 the heaviest (All others are between these two, including the M14/M1 operating system).

There have been people in the US Military who have advocated adopting of the AK since Vietnam. Most such movements have been shot down do to the AK's weight (And possible confusion in battle if both sides are using the same weapon for soldiers operate on sound as much as by light during combat, especially as night).

As to a replacement for the M16/M4, the Military is committed to the 5.56mm round so at best we are looking at a new 5.56mm weapon. The extra weight of the AK is probably worth adopting it do to its reliability in mud and dust, just adopt it in 5.56mm and using m16 magazines (One of the weak points of the AK, is its Magazines are NOT as easy to load into the weapon as is the M16 magazine mechanism, thus adopting the AK with M16 magazine capacity would be better then a straight adoption of the AK).

[DissedByBush]

21. Thanks for the info

I actually learned a few things about M-16 history.

As for the round, the SCAR is being produced in two calibers, the 5.56x45 (223) and the 7.62x51 (308).

As for weight, the 5.56 SCAR with a normal barrel weighs less than the M-16, while the 7.62 SCAR with a long barrel still weighs less than an AK-47.

[happyslug]

23. The SCAR seems to be at least the third attempt by FN to design an assault rifle

The previous efforts have all failed (Despite the fact that FN had designed and produced the FAL right after WWII and was subsequently adopted by most NATO Countries, Germany and Turkey being the biggest exception, both adopted the German G-3, both the G-3 and FAL fired the 7.62x51 NATO Round. FN also designed the MAG which became the NATO standard along with the German MG-3). Given this extensive design experience with the BAR, the FAL and the MAG FN should have been able to design a decent 5.56mm weapon but it kept failing in each attempt to do so.

The FAL and the SCAR seems to be derived from the M1918 BAR (via the M249 SAW) but the SCAR was designed from bottom up to meet modern standards AND to be used as a Rifle not a Squad Automatic Weapon (The FN Plant made BARs between WWI and WWII and even during and after for various Countries other then the US). Modern Computer design and manufacturing techniques help reduce the cost of production compared to the almost hand made M1918 BAR (Thus the cost of the SCAR, in today's money is no where near the cost to produce the M1918 BAR).

Please note the SCAR seems to be a completely new design, the only thing that appears derived from any other weapon is the bolt and locking device of the bolt which had been the heart of the BAR and later the FAL and MAG (and in each case completely designed for each specific weapon for the purpose of the FAL and the MAG were as different from each other as the BAR was from either of them). This bolt and locking mechanism is derived from the same type of mechanism used in the M1918 BAR (For comparison both the AK and M16 series of rifle both use a rotating bolt, developed about the same time but by two different people who did not know of each other's work, while both are rotating bolts HOW and HOW MUCH each rotate is completely different and is the strength of BOTH DESIGNS, just pointing out that similar designed is not the same as designed derived from other design the SCAR seems to be BAR derived NOT a completely new design of the same basic method).

Interesting observation, the AK series of weapons started out as a Sub Machine Gun during WWII that was rejected by the Soviets, then Kalashnikov used the basic design to come up with the Soviet PK series of General Purpose Machine Guns (When the US was looking for a replacement of M60 Machine Gun, the army tested newly build M60s, along with newly built German MG-3s, FN MAGs and solely for comparison a second hand PK. The M60 quickly lost out in the fight, but the PK stayed up with the MG-3 and MAG till the end of the test (The PK developed a crack in its receiver half way through the test but it was determined it had no effect on the weapon so it continued to be fired and finished the test with no problems). At the time a rumor went around that the testers were so impressed they tried to get the Army to adopt the PK, but the people lobbying the Army to make the new Machine Gun wanted to build MG3s or MAGs NOT PKs, thus the idea went no where and the MAG was adopted to replace the M60.

I bring this up for after Kalashnikov designed the PK, he designed the AK, thus the AK is derived directly from a Machine Gun Design NOT a rifle design. The FAL was an even more radical re-design form the M1918 BAR (Do to the need to keep the weight down, the FAL, like the G-3 and M14 really was to light to be fired in Automatic mode effectively) and the SCAR seems to retain the basic BAR mechanism but completely reworked with new trigger, and gas systems. The M1918 BAR was know to be reliable but expensive to produce. The SCAR seems to have addressed the problem of expense while retaining reliability. Thus the better solution to the issue of how to design a better Assault Rifle is to start with a Machine Gun design and make it lighter rather then start with a rifle design and make it heaver.

[jmowreader]

24. Some of this is slightly off

Eugene Stoner designed the "Armalite" operating mechanism the M-16 is based on. (The "assault rifle" semiauto version of the M16 is called the AR-15. AR is short for Armalite Rifle.) The original Armalite was the AR-10, which is a 7.62mm NATO rifle. It worked well. Stoner decided to make a lighter version that fired the .223 cartridge. This is the AR-15.

Stoner designed the weapon around a kind of smokeless powder called Improved Military Rifle. It's flaked. IMR powder burns very quickly, producing a lot of gas. Stoner routed the gas through a port in the barrel and down a tube to push the rifle's bolt back.

Now here's the REAL problem. Forget chromed chambers and all that. The military uses Ball powder, which is in little spheres. Ball powder is used in artillery weapons, so the army has a lot of it. They decided to change the AR-15, which now has the military nomenclature M-16, to it. Ball powder didn't make gas the way the Armalite mechanism needed, and malfunctions were common.

Next problem: When Colt got the rifle design and started pushing it to the military, they claimed it was a self-cleaning rifle. The Army likes low-maintenance items, as you'd expect. Not only did they keep the ball powder, which burns dirtier than IMR, but they didn't buy cleaning kits! (And you couldn't use an M-14 or M-60 cleaning kit with it; the brushes and cleaning rod won't fit in the barrel.) Eventually they figured out you have to clean this piece of shit, but many Vietnam soldiers died from dirty weapons.

They eventually added features to make it more reliable, but it's still not that great.

Next problem: our cleaning supplies. There are several good products that clean M-16s well. My favorite is Hoppe's No. 9, which has been around forever. Some guys like brake cleaner. I've seen WD-40 used effectively, and some units are buying Safety-Kleen parts cleaning machines. A Safety-Kleen machine weighs hundreds of pounds, runs on electricity and is a fire hazard as it's full of mineral spirits, so it can't go to the field. The Army issues Break-Free as a combination cleaner and lube. It's barely acceptable as a cleaner. As a lube it's okay; it's got lots of teflon in it, so as long as you put a THIN coat on--something most guys don't do; this requires either a paintbrush or a rag, not putting it on out of the bottle and smearing it around with your finger--it does the job well.

I really disagree with the notion we should adopt the Kalashnikov over the M-16; fratricide is why. We train our soldiers to kill the enemy. Our enemy carries the very distinctive-looking Kalashnikov. If you were sitting on a listening post at night and saw a silhouette carrying a Kalashnikov approach your position, you'd shoot the person. Many of Our Troops would die in friendly fire incidents if they were packin' AKs. (Incidentally, the AK-101 and AK-102 rifles are already chambered for 5.56mm NATO ammunition. The only real change we'd have to get them to make is to have the magazine well be made compatible with M-16 mags because we have a vast number of them.) The real solution to the M-16 problem is the HK-416. It is not a complete weapon system, but rather just an upper receiver that will fit on an M-16 or M-4. It's got an operating rod driven by a piston and an H&K-standard hexagonal barrel. Our Special Forces troops have used their commanders' imprest (a fund a commander can use to buy small-dollar non-standard items) to buy these, and they're well liked.

(There's another reason we can't adopt the Kalashnikov: all the systems in place to deal with the M-16. We have millions of spare parts. Thousands of trained armorer personnel--from unit-level arms room workers to depot-maintenance level overhaulers. Over a million people in uniform who are trained to fight with this weapon--the ballistics of the AK-101 would have to be different from those of the M-16 because the barrel is shorter, and the sights are very different. And we've got a large number of night sights that will fit on an M-16 but won't fit on an AK because the AK doesn't have the Picatinny Rail--the official name for the "carrying handle" on top of the M-16. (Vote of vets: Does ANYONE remember actually carrying an M-16 by this thing?) It would cost BILLIONS to replace the M-16, which truth be told is a decent weapon under most circumstances, with an AK. My choice is to change to the HK-416 upper receiver, which accepts the Colt handgrips, Colt bolt assembly and Picatinny Rail sight accessories. This preserves our substantial investment in M-16 technology, and it keeps the American soldier's silhouette from looking like a Muslim Terrorist's.)

[happyslug]

29. As I said above, the "Bad Ammunition" was a cover story

The AR-10/AR-15/M16/M4 series of rifles problem was the Chambers were NOT chromed. Had the Chambers been chromed the whole problem of the M16 jamming in the Jungle of Vietnam would NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. As soldiers reported after the Army "Fixed" the problem, the older models of the M-16 was still jamming AFTER the ammunition was changed to a cleaning burning powder AND cleaning kits were issued (And the troops learned the only way to clean an M16 was to boil it in water, which I did several times while in the National Guard, using the Cooks heaters used to heat water to clean mess kits before chow).

You are ignoring what the Army was facing in Vietnam in the period 1964-1968. The Russians were re-equipping its army with AKs, freeing up SKS for use by the Viet Cong. The Russian finally had the stamping capacity starting in 1959 to stamp out AKs (Previously they had been drilled from a single piece of steel do to lack of stamping Capacity in the Soviet Union). Thus the US was facing increasing numbers of SKS and AKs in Vietnam. M14 production had stopped in 1964 and most were still in service someplace (Often In Vietnam among Troops who preferred the M14 to the M16) but not enough to replace the M16s then in service in Vietnam. The only weapon the US had to Stock to Issue to troops to replace existing M16s was the M1. Against the AK and SKS the M1 lacked the fire power provided by the M16. Thus the Army was facing a dilemma, if they pulled out the M16 and get them Chromed lined, the troops would face troops with superior fire power in the SKS and AK series of Rifles. If the M16 were kept in service some would jam after heavy combat. Given these two unpleasant choices the Army decided to try to relieve some of the problems with the M16 with the Change in Ammunition and issuing Cleaning kits AND ordering any new M16s to be chromed lined. This would permit a slow improvement in situation as the new M16s, with chrome lined chambers, were slowly issued (In fact it is hard to find an early version of the M16 for when they were withdrawn not only were their chromed lined the original open flash suppressor was replaced by the closed flash suppressor used ever since).

No, the reason for the problems of the M16 was it lack of a chrome lined chamber, but by the time that was found out the weapon was in full use AND NO ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE WAS AVAILABLE. Thus the Army decided to muddle through the problem and hope for the best. The alternatives was worse, withdrawing the M16 till they were Chromed lined and issuing the troops M1 rifles against SKS and AKs. Thus the Army put the best face it could and muddle forward (Yes, the Army lied about the M16, but it was a lie I could support them saying, the Viet Cong did NOT need to know how bad the problem was least they address it).

One last comment, there was a rumor that the US Army was planning to replace the M16 with the AR-18 in 1968. This plan fell through (Do to the need for even more M16 at that time period and of course lobbying by Colt who owned the rights to the M16 and AR-15 but NOT the AR-18). The AR-18 actually solved many of the problems with the M16, including adopting a mechanical leakage system to replace the direct gas system of the M16 AND getting rid of the compensator in the Shoulder Stock of the M16. It was Stoner's final development of the M16 some were made but no one adopted it (Through parts of it shows up in the European 5.56 mm weapons adopted in the 1980s).

[jmowreader]

30. The chrome-lined chamber wasn't the rifle's only problem

It was bad, but not the only thing.

I find it kinda curious that when they were designing this rifle to fight in Vietnam, one of their biggest worries was how it would perform at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

[Proletariatprincess]

9. of course they don't support the military troops....

they hire mercenaries to do the work now. Troopers are just cannon fodder and expendable.
I bet the Blackwater/Xs groups have excellent equitment....and all paid for with tax payer dollars at inflated rates.
What a country.

[SpiralHawk]

11. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[SpiralHawk]

12. "Sneer." - xVP Dickie 'Five-Military-Deferments' Cheney (R)

[Festivito]

13. There should be a 10% for all pentagon desk-jockeys for this mistake.

Maybe they'll all start watching and learning.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

14. The military must be getting their gear from Hasbro

http://images.smh.com.au/ftsmh/ffximage/2009/02/18/gijoe2_narrowweb__300x410,0.jpg

[bemildred]

18. Obama's White House doesn't have a thing to do with this, and these guys know it.

The white house does not decide in any way what soldier do or do not carry.

I would wage dollars to donuts these congressional weasels don't really care a fig about what the grunts have to put up with.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Obama is responsible for the well being of the troops under his command

It was Obama who kept a lot of Rumsfeld's neocon cadre in the Pentagon

[bemildred]

20. Is it your intention to defend these Congresspersons? nt

[jmowreader]

25. The Sustainment Load Pack sucks? Imagine that!

In the beginning we had the ALICE pack--better known as the "large rucksack." It was good.

Then they brought in the Lowe ruck, which was an interim solution. It was pretty, but very expensive, somewhat uncomfortable and not that large. I know guys who bought ALICE packs to wear instead of Lowe rucks.

Then the Sustainment Load Pack came in, which was worse.

One big problem here is they can't just buy off-the-shelf backpacks--not only are they generally the wrong color, very few hikers need the ability to carry 81mm mortar rounds strapped to the outside. Infantrymen have different needs. So they design their own packs, and they fuck it up. ALICE wasn't so great, but she was better than anything that came after her.

[happyslug]

28. ALICE pack with or without Frame?

When I enlisted in the National Guard in 1981 I was issued the "1956 Pack System". This consisted of the small butt pack and a strap to tie around you shelter half and sleeping bad and then attach the strap to the butt pack and then attached via two clips on the front of what was called "H pattern suspenders". I had used an ALICE pack in Basic but my unit did NOT have enough ALICE pack for everyone so a handful of us had to make do with the "1956 Pack System" (The worse part was I was issued the "Y patten suspenders" which did NOT have the attachment clips for the "1956 Pack System" straps, so I had a system that I could carry in my hands but not my back, fortunately I was in a Field Artillery unit so not a big problem).

By the mid 1980s that had changed and I had an opportunity to obtain an Alice Pack with a first generation frame (I purchased it from an Army Surplus stores, they had it before it was issued to me, you try to figure that out). Later on I was issued a ALICE Pack with a Second Generation frame (This frame actually had a strap that went around your belly like commercial back packs). You could haul a lot in them, I once even went back packing with them and they worked out nicely (and then bought a better civilian design but the ALICE pack as and is a good overall design).

People forget the first war ever fought where one side did NOT have to march some of its soldiers into battle was Desert Storm (yes in Vietnam we had soldiers who MARCHED into combat). The ALICE Pack designed reflected this relativity i.e. Soldiers may have to carry all they and their units needs on their backs. The MOLLE came post Desert Strom i.e. where you can assume that ALL US Troops would have access to vehicle to not only transport their equipment BUT the soldiers themselves. This has had an impact on designs for packs, weapons and other equipment for the US Military. The MOLLE attachment system appears to be superior to the ALICE clips I used, and the "Belt" portion of the LBE appears to be more useful then the old fashioned Combat Belt I was issued (Through I notice the holes needed by the 1910 Pack System and retained in the 1956 and ALICE Pack System are now gone, the only issued item I was issued to use those holes was the M7 Bayonet for the M16, the M7 was replaced in the 1990s so nothing survives from the 1910 pack system).

Please note, one of the reason the ALICE Pack came into use was the decision in 1947 to drop Army Mules. Up till the 1950s, if Troops were in areas where trucks could not go, their were supplied by mules. In theory the last 100 Army Mules were replaced by 20 Helicopters about 1957. The problem was how do you carry the Ammunition supplied by Chopper after the Chopper has left? With Mules you kept the mule (Which could go anywhere a man can walk to) which carried much of the crew served ammunition. With no mules that left only the men in the unit to carry any and all crew served weapons ammunition. The WWII era Packs could NOT provide such hauling capacity (In fact my Father, a WWII Infantrymen was never issued ANY pack, he had to carry his blankets, spare uniforms and shelter half in a "Blanket Roll" over and around his body). Thus the ALICE system was born to solve the problem of how to keep troops in difficult terrain supplied. A problem solved by Mules before the mid 1950s (and trucks in areas where trucks could travel).

With the increase mechanization of the US Military after Vietnam the idea that infantrymen may have to operate independent of Vehicles came to be viewed as old fashioned. Thus when the MOLLE Gear was designed in the mid 1990s it was decided that the system to be optimized so that each soldier to carry less in the Pack and more on his own body. Your Comments reflect not only your rejection of this concept (Probably because of your own experience) but maybe that the entire concept is stupid (i.e. the better solution is to optimize the pack for use by infantry independent of Vehicles NOT with Vehicles). A pack optimized for infantry on foot will be taller, thinner with lots of pockets (Which can be designed to carry 60mm and 81mm Rounds as while as 7.62 boxes of Machine Gun ammunition). The MOLLE system can do that if the pack itself is built well enough in the first place.

The above is more comments on HOW and WHY packs design have involved in the US Military then anything else.

[happyslug]

26. Soldiers buying their own uniforms?

Enlisted ranks are ISSUED clothing and when worn out are to be replaced at the expensive of the Military. If the uniform is worn out, it is to be turned in and exchanged. The Military does put some restrictions on such exchanges but still does the exchange (Through it can be like pulling teeth to get an exchange done). Now, the Military generally issues only three sets of battle dress uniforms, most soldiers buy additional uniforms to supplement those three that are issued but if the uniform is worn our, take it to the Supply Sargent and get a new one to replace it.

As to the IBE gear, 20-30 pounds is all a person can carry without affecting his movement over an extended time period (It was for this reason Armor disappears on soldiers after the introduction of Gun Powder, pre-gun powder days battle lines were rarely 100 yards or more apart, the range of an arrow, with the introduction of Cannons in the 1400s this increase to over 1000 yards, to far to March or run while wearing armor so armor was dropped, this limitation still exist today so when armor was reintroduced during WWI it was restricted to head gear to keep the weight low). If you are fighting ON FOOT the most you can carry is 20-30 pounds, more then that will affect your ability to fight. The problem is we want our troops to have not only a helmet, but body armor, water, plenty of ammunition. Night vision goggles and the batteries to provide power to those goggles have also to be carried. All of this adds to the weight the Soldier is carrying and it affects his long term ability to fight. Now in both Iraq and Afghanistan no battle lasts more then 20 minutes (That is the longest it takes the Air Force to get planes to the area to provide air support so the Resistance knows it can NOT fight more then 20 minutes at a time). Our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan have access to vehicles to transport additional ammunition and equipment (Unlike Vietnam where such additional supplies had to be carried by the troops in the unit) thus we are just looking at the weight of what the individual soldier has to carry for his own use NOT the use of any crew served weapon). In Vietnam the ALICE packs carried by the Soldiers not only carried that Soldier supplies, but ammunition for any crew served weapon supporting the unit (For example 60mm and 81mm Mortar bombs and 7.62mm ammunition for the machine guns). The key was the Alice packs were DROPPED before the unit entered into actual combat, making the load carried by the soldier lighter AND giving the Crew Served weapons access to the supplies in those Alice Packs.

Today, the ALICE packs have been replaced, but MOLLE Pack that replaced the ALICE Pack is NOT what is being complained about. Most soldier leave their Molle Pack in the Vehicle they are transported in so no a problem. The problem appears to be the Actual Load Bearing Equipment (LBE) portion of the Molle System and that seems to be done do to the desire of most commanders to have their men have ALL of their Equipment with them in case it is needed. The Molle LBE system, like the ALICE LBE System was NEVER designed for as much weight as it does today (The Molle does a better job then the ALICE system does but neither system as part of the LBE was design to carry more then 20-30 pounds, please note I am EXCLUDING the Pack when I am using the term LBE or Load Bearing Equipment).

In my opinion it seems the problem is the unit Commanders are permitting (or requiring) the men under their command to carry to much equipment into combat on their LBE. Most of that excessive weight should be in the pack WHICH SHOULD BE WITH THE MEN EXCEPT WHEN IN ACTUAL COMBAT. I do NOT know why this is occurring, maybe the intensity of the combat is that bad but to much weight on the body of the soldiers seems to be the problem more then bad LBE design. A different set of fighting doctrine may be in order to lighten the load of the soldier but keeping more in a pack that is discarded in actual combat as opposed to being on his body on his Load bearing vest.

[Blue_Tires]

27. why aren't the actual low-bid contractors ever called out or even named

in stories about these shitty products (which they seemingly don't even bother to test anymore??)

the issues with the rifles go back for decades, but what multimillion corporation doesn't know how to make a proper rucksack??

[BreweryYardRat]

31. Even more MIC procurement/R&D fuck-ups. *headdesk*

I'm getting sick and fucking tired of all these incidents of substandard equipment being provided at inflated prices.