Infantry: Well Protected And Quite Dead

Archives

October 23, 2018: The U.S. Army finally (in 2017) agreed to do a study of the impact of the weight American infantry carry into combat and the impact of that weight on performance. The troops have been complaining about this weight issue for some time. The average weight carried is 54 kg (119 pounds) and while about a third of that can be dropped in an emergency, most of it (weapons and protective gear) cannot. The IOTV (Improved Outer Tactical Vest) and helmet account for a third of the weight. Worse the IOTV restricts movement and this is a major shortcoming in combat.

Because of this, the U.S. Army is having second thought about its IOTV and current body armor designs in general. IOTV has been around since 2008 and was last updated in 2015. IOTV weighs from 13.6 kg (30 pounds) to 15.9 kg (35 pounds) depending on the size and gender of the user. The 2015 tweaks include using a different mesh on the inside of the vest, as the old material tended to cause chafing. The quick release cable was moved to make it easier to use. Since coming out the IOTV has had several minor changes, including additional ways to hang additional gear on the outside of the vest. There was also a version designed to better fit female troops.

But until recently one major complaint has not been addressed. What the army has not tweaked is the weight and, to a lesser extent, the restrictive nature of the vest. While the troops appreciate changes that make it easier to move about while encumbered by the vest, what was bothering troops most, especially the infantry who have to run around on foot wearing IOTV while fighting, was the weight. Despite the weight and mobility problems this lifesaving bit of equipment has saved thousands of lives since 2008. But because of political grandstanding and media distortions, IOTV has become too heavy and restrictive. The troops want lighter body armor, even if it does increase vulnerability to bullets. Marine and Army experts point out that the drive (created mainly by politicians and the media) for "better" body armor resulted in heavier and more restrictive (to battlefield mobility) models. This has more than doubled the minimum weight you could carry into combat. The report agreed with troop complaints that the excessive weight caused increased fatigue, reduced speed in combat and made it difficult to use weapons quickly and effectively when the enemy was encountered. The report also pointed out that a third of the troops shipped out of the theater for treatment of injuries were suffering from weight-related problems (musculoskeletal injuries) and that was twice as many suffered from enemy fire. The report suggested that company commanders have the authority to decide which missions can be carried with by troops carrying much less weight, even without full body armor. Currently only much more senior commanders can do that and they are not in touch with local conditions (have to look the troops in the eye) and are very sensitive to being accused by media and politicians of sending troops into combat “without protection.” Yet SOCOM regularly does so and no one criticizes them for allowing local commanders to make that decision. The army responded that they are already delivering a helmet that is 40 percent lighter and are developing a new MSV (Modular Scalable Vest) that is 17 percent lighter than the current IOTV. But all that avoids the central complaint; that the soldier carries a counterproductive load and local (company) commanders should have authority to decide how much weight is best for a situation.

This weight issue is a relatively recent problem. Until the 1980s, you could strip down (for actual fighting) to your helmet, weapon (assault rifle and knife), ammo (hanging from webbing on your chest, along with grenades), canteen and first aid kit on your belt, and your combat uniform. Total load was 13-14 kg (about 30 pounds), which is as much as the IOTV alone weighs. You could move freely and quickly while carrying only 14 kg and you quickly found that speed and agility was a lifesaver in combat. But now the minimum load carried is at least twice as much (27 kg) and, worse yet, more restrictive to mobility and speed.

While troops complained about the new protective vests, they valued them in combat. The current generation of vests will stop rifle bullets, a first in the history of warfare. And this was after nearly a century of trying to develop protective vests that were worth the hassle of wearing. It wasn't until the 1980s that it was possible to make truly bulletproof vests using metallic inserts. But the inserts were heavy and so were the vests (about 11.3 kg/25 pounds). Great for SWAT teams but not as useful for the infantry who often have to wear these things for many hours, often in intense heat. But in the 1990s, additional research produced lighter bullet proof ceramic materials. By 1999, the U.S. Army began distributing a 7.3 kg (16 pound) "Interceptor" vest that provided fragment and bullet protection. This, plus the 1.5 kg (3.3 pound) Kevlar helmet (available since the 1980s), gave the infantry the best combination of protection and mobility. And just in time.

Since the end of the Cold War, more of the situations U.S. infantry find themselves in involve lightly armed irregulars who rely more on bullets than bombs. The bullet proof vest eliminates most of the damage done by the 30 percent of wounds that occur in the trunk (of which about 40 percent tend to be fatal without a vest). The Kevlar helmet is also virtually bulletproof but it doesn't cover all of the head (the face and part of the neck is still exposed). Even so, the reduction in deaths is significant. Some 15-20 percent of all wounds are in the head and about 45 percent of them are fatal without a helmet. The Kevlar helmet reduces the deaths by at least half and when combined with the vest reduces many wounds to the status of bumps, sprains, and headaches. Half the wounds occur in the arms and legs, but only 5-10 percent of these are fatal, and that won't change any time soon. Thus, since Vietnam, improved body armor has reduced casualties by more than half. The protective vests used in Vietnam and late in the Korean War reduced casualties by about 25 percent since World War II, so the risk of getting killed or wounded has been cut in half since World War II because of improved body armor. Much better medical care (especially rapid evacuation of casualties by helicopter) has helped change the ratio of dead to wounded from 1:3 during World War II to 1:7 today.

Recent vest designs were an improvement in other ways. They are easier to wear and are cooler in hot climates because you can more easily adjust them to let some air circulate. You could also hang gear from the vest, making it more a piece of clothing. It's still hot to wear the vest in hot weather but if you're expecting a firefight it's easier to make the decision to wear the vest. You know it will stop bullets. U.S. troops who have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and been hit with rifle bullets that would have penetrated earlier vests quickly spread the word throughout the ground combat community.

As new and heavier vests were introduced the troops often found themselves with protection and weight they did not need. For example, the latest vests will protect you from a hit from a high-powered rifle fired at close range. That is rare in combat. The latest vests will also protect you from multiple high-powered machine-gun bullet hits. Again, that's rare, and an increasing number of soldiers and marines are willing to trade that for less weight and more mobility. The army tried to solve the problem by instituting new training methods that emphasized building muscle and the ability to be agile under all that weight. The new exercises helped somewhat but moving vigorously with all that weight has led to more musculoskeletal problems, many of them with long term consequences.

The enemy has also adapted, knowing that the more heavily encumbered Americans were not as agile or as fast and that could be exploited. The frustration of being slower than your foe often led U.S. troops to exertions that brought on musculoskeletal injuries. The new body armor may protect from bullets and shell fragments but it does nothing for over exuberant troops.

So the soldiers and marines are getting louder in their demands for relief from protection they don't need and restrictive protective vests that can get them killed.

 


Article Archive

Infantry: Current 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


X

ad

Help Keep Us Flying!

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close