physical condition of Western vs non-western combatants

[SinerAthin]

Superior physical conditioning is a pretty good boon.

Bigger muscles(to a point) will enable you to carry more ammunition, have an advantage in CQC, carry more armor(so you can survive more) and in general have more supplies than your opponent.

There is also an important psychological factor to consider as well, as a big dude can have an intimidating effect on other men. You're going to need a lot more motivation and courage to attack someone who's bigger than you than you'll need to attack someone smaller than you. Muscular dudes also gain naturally more respect in a lot of cultures, especially eastern european ones.
This makes buff dudes also ideal for peacekeeping missions.

Women and skinny dudes, while they are just as good at hitting a target 1000 yards away as anyone else, have a harder time being feared/respected due to physical/cultural reasons.

[Holger Danske]

With the rise of augmented strength, big muscles becomes far less important while cardio and mental health will become the focus.

There is also an important psychological factor to consider as well, as a big dude can have an intimidating effect on other men. You're going to need a lot more motivation and courage to attack someone who's bigger than you than you'll need to attack someone smaller than you.

Yes, if we're talking about melee combat, but in a fire fight I'd hate to be the one who is an easier target to hit.

[Enros]

Bigger soldiers aren't necessarily better. Their main advantage is that they can carry heavier loads more comfortably. They are also better at hand-to-hand fighting and throwing grenades.

Anthony Beevor claims that tall big men suffered disproportionately high casualties in WW2. They are simply bigger targets . Also, in starvation situations, small men will live longer on the same diet. Only horses were fed based on their weight.

The most decorated American soldier Audie Murphy was 5 feet 5 inches tall, slightly smaller than the average of 5 feet 5 3/4 inches

[Town Watch]

I used to read a lot of WWII in the Pacific history, being my Grandfather was a marine there. Reading Japanese accounts there was some intimidation factor involved with larger enemies, but one direct thing was that Americans could throw their grenades further than the Japanese. How much that really effected things, or if it were only a perception thing, who knows but the Japanese seemed to believe it.

Probably also because Americans played baseball? Then again baseball was also popular in Japan around that time. But perhaps the sport was more established in American society even so.

[G-Megas-Doux]

One of the biggest problems facing soldiers on a march is that they carry over 100 pounds in weight on their back then march a few yards, spot something, take a knee and determine the best course of action then stand up and move on when deemed safe. In an area where there are plenty of IEDs that will happen a lot. Now look up the data on joint injuries. The US tracks it, Sweden had 25% of their troops suffer from this on return from one tour of Afghanistan, surprisingly the UK Armed forces don't track this data. Just as an example 100 pounds is more than a Roman Legionary, a Medieval man at arms, a Napoleonic Soldier or a Squaddie in the Falklands had to march with. Perhaps we need to improve the weight levels of other things that are carried. Not much can be done about water or ammunition and armour which is a lot of weight when put together, so there are legitimate reasons why western soldiers suffer from physical debilitation when marching in a high altitude, hot climate in full kit with provisions on a regular basis.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Apologies if this has been brought up.

But in terms of carrying, trekking and risk of injury i think especially in the near future a 'Western'/NATO solider will have a massive advantage over non-western counterparts. This being the development of exo-skeletons for military use.

http://www.businessinsider.com/milit...14-8?op=1&IR=T
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...leton-4371576/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/c...lors-stronger/

Even the US Navy is getting on board with these to make their personel stronger than is otherwise possible- it also potentially means a fitness upgrade beyond your average human for those who don't really 'work out' to such an extent as some soldiers do.

For instance the UK marines each have to have the physical fitness of an Olympic Athlete by the time they pass out and earn the Green Beret. The British army- less so, 26 weeks of basic training and less grueling tests. The exo-skeleton seems set to make such differences rather void in theory (though in practice i'm sure innate fitness will still be important).

It's also interestingly a way to equalize the arguably unfairly different standards for male and female personnel, and indeed may allow for the deployment of women in more combat orientated roles.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Exercise can and does ultimately lead to injury when intensity is maintained. Often soldiers are required to push harder than a body can actually maintain and for longer. It is also something to be noticed that professional athletes do this as well and become prone to injury. There are certain injuries where once you pull a muscle or damage a joint it will happen again on a frequent basis. The exo-skeleton is an interesting idea I am impressed at this more subtle version of solving the problem as opposed to the hulking machine in "Aliens" or other films and games.

[Aru]

But in terms of carrying, trekking and risk of injury i think especially in the near future a 'Western'/NATO solider will have a massive advantage over non-western counterparts. This being the development of exo-skeletons for military use.

We are far, far away from that. You need exoskeleton which won't make a soldier heavy (very important), bigger target, will not affect agility and speed negatively. It is far more likely a lghter weight weapons and gear will be made before exoskeletons. And far more cheaper.

At best, in forseeable futur there will be exoskeletons like in Alien movies - used to carry stuff around.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

We are far, far away from that. You need exoskeleton which won't make a soldier heavy (very important), bigger target, will not affect agility and speed negatively. It is far more likely a lghter weight weapons and gear will be made before exoskeletons. And far more cheaper.

At best, in forseeable futur there will be exoskeletons like in Alien movies - used to carry stuff around.

I'd beg to differ- we're really only a few years away- indeed their already in practical trials, and the US army is working on 'Talos'

In 2007, the defense giant Raytheon purchased Sarcos. In 2010, Raytheon-Sarcos released the XOS 2. The XOS 2 featured a host of improvements over the XOS.The XOS 2 suit allows users to lift heavy objects at an actual-to-perceived-weight ratio of 17:1. The suit also required 50% less energy than the XOS, while also weighing 10% less than its predecessor.
The XOS 2 is also touted as being more precise, faster, and more portable than the XOS. The military is considering using the XOS 2 in its TALOS project.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/milit...#ixzz3PBNiO6oa

In 2009, Ekso Bionics licensed the HULC to Lockheed Martin for research into possible military applications. Lockheed continued its development of the HULC along the same lines as Ekso Bionics, but it increased the functionality of the suit to match the military's needs.
HULC is multi-terrain operational, supports front and back payloads, and has enough power to last for an eight-hour march before having to be recharged. HULC allows a user to perform deep squats or crawl while wearing it, and it supports upper-body lifting as well. HULC is one of the exoskeletons currently being examined by the military for possible use in its TALOS Iron Man suit.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/milit...#ixzz3PBO0wtJj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePl9TC2ySUY (Set 12 months by the US- though lets be honest, deadlines like this are always too optimistic)

So seems an immediate future thing in terms of creating an exoskeleton that increases carry load, minimizes injury risk (As G-Megas was just talking about) and improves agility.

This of course isn't an 'Iron Man' style exoskeleton that's indeed probably far off- but it's the 'practical' one for immediate forces needs. And indeed reduces potentially the difference between male and female soldiers.

[Captain Jin]

For instance the UK marines each have to have the physical fitness of an Olympic Athlete by the time they pass out and earn the Green Beret. The British army- less so, 26 weeks of basic training and less grueling tests. The exo-skeleton seems set to make such differences rather void in theory (though in practice i'm sure innate fitness will still be important).

I don't know about Olympic athlete. They are certainly in excellent condition, but that's a pretty bold claim.

Anyway, size is not something that is desired at all. And, at least in the United States, the US military is a relative reflection of the population at large. You get all sorts of sizes of people, but more often than not your average height is going to mirror the average height of the population. Most of the guys in the Marine Corps were roughly between 5'9" and 6'1", give or take an inch here and there. By no means were the biggest, strongest guys the best performers either. For instance, the machine gun section leader in my company was incredibly strong. He could bench over 500 lbs. But he had back problems and the few times he went out on patrol with us it was problematic for him on some occasions. The biggest reason is because, while weight training is effective way to increase strength, there is not a direct correlation to how you perform when you are loaded down with all the equipment, ammo, water etc and asked to go walk for hours on end in bad terrain, in the heat, and all of that. You need a strong back for this stuff, but not everyone focuses their weight training on their back muscles. Likewise powerful traps help offset the immense pain you feel in your traps when you're operating, because a significant amount of weight is focused on that part of your body.

The most important aspect is endurance. Both physical and mental. Sure, you do lots of long distance running, crunches, pull ups, etc, but I've seen many people that perform just around average levels in these events excel when you load them full of weight. I certainly never did the most pull ups, nor did I have the fastest three mile run time. In fact my run times were generally pretty average-- around 23-24 minutes. But most of the guys that could do it in 18 mins usually got smoke checked when you through all the gear on them and told them to run range 400. Endurance is key. And just being able to stomach the consistent, irritating pain that is basically starts 10 minutes after you've left the wire and only gets worse as the seconds tick by. If you look at most professional troops they are not built like body builders. They are more lean and sinewy and while the muscles may not be big, and they may not power lift a metric ton, they are strong enough to perform the tasks required of them repeatedly. That's the most important aspect. I had a Tongan in my fire team who was just stacked muscle on muscle. I once saw him benching. He had 315 on which wasn't too insane, except that he was playing with it like it was nothing. Yet when we geared up and went out he often struggled because he didn't have the proper endurance. He usually suffered more on patrol than my more wiry guy that had a background in baseball. He wasn't nearly as strong as the Tongan, but he could hump a lot of weight for a long time.

Nevertheless, in the units I served in during deployment, weight lifting was a major pass time and so everyone became much, much stronger. As an example, I maxed out my bench press in Afghanistan at 265 lbs. I was all proud of myself, but actually I was pretty average. Most guys were doing over 300 pounds. And the peculiar thing about your environment and the patrolling means you're not putting on excessive weight normally associated with bulking. In the States when I lift heavy I'm typically 190 lbs give or take four or five pounds. In Afghan/Iraq I was usually hovering around 170-175 lbs. I'm 5'9", most guys were about my height.

On another note we had guy in my battalion that was like 6'8" or some such and he was absolutely considered a liability. First, he was not even allowed to go on the MEU because he was too big for ship life. Second, when we went to Afghanistan he actually had to sign a waiver saying he was opening himself to more risk because of his size-- principally because he may not have fit in a Huey if he needed to be MEDEVACed and the closest bird was a gunship. Carrying an average size male that is wounded is already a horribly difficult experience. Doing it with someone that size is almost impossible. Not to mention all the problems he had finding cover. I remember observing for his squad on a company attack and following them through some defilade they used to get closer to an objective. All the other Marines were well covered in the dry creek that we moved through except him. He towered above everyone else and, if there was an enemy, they'd have seen him and opened fire long before we were in our final assault position. Even though he was crouched over the entire way. He was simply too f'ing tall.

most western soldiers today are un-professional whiny spoilt first world brats.

Hah, what a joke.

[Aru]

I'd beg to differ- we're really only a few years away- indeed their already in practical trials, and the US army is working on 'Talos'

All I see is that the development has barely moved forward in decades.

I see possibility for widespread civilian use in near future, albeit still limited because batteries are simply too short lived with present technology.

Military wise, it's still quite far from being useful.

There are things to consider:
1. The thing needs to be durable. Soldiers run, jump, roll around. It must not break down! The lighter it is, the weaker it is. The more advanced it is, the more prone to breaking down it is. Just one of the sensors breaks down due to dust and soldier is stranded.
2. The thing needs to work for many hours non stop, maybe days. No battery today (and unless some amazing breakthrough is done is science, for quite some time) can handle that. Soldier can't open an umbrella with solar colectors in the middle of the battle or look for a plug.
3. The battery needs to be small, durable and well protected. I'm sure you can put a huge battery the size of a backpack on soldiers back, in fact that's on the images you linked. But it's not gonna work in battle, soldier needs to carry gear somewhere, big battery is easier to damage and it defeats it's purpose if the added strenght of the exoskeleton is used to carry itself. And even small battery needs to be able to suffer a lot of punishment without breaking down.
4. Finally, the cost. Let's say the technology is developed for small, long lasting battery in very near future. There are very light materials already. But very expensive. Such exoskeleton wouldn't pay to make for thousands of troops. And soldiers would need extra training to use it, which means more money.

Honestly, I don't even see the point. It would be easier to develop ways to lighten the load that soldiers carry than make soldiers stronger. I am not so sure about soldiers being faster in exoskeleton, as speed depends on individual's ability to "drive" the exoskeleton, maintain balance and agility. What other uses are there for increased strength in moddern battlefield? Taking down houses with one's fist? Throwing big boulders at the Taliban? Throwing grenades farther? Why, when you can use grenade throwers.

As I said, I can see exoskeletons used for carrying stuff in the base, loading artillery guns and other stuff done not in battle. I don't see them being used in near future, on the front lines, before they are made to be affordable and reliable gear. Even then, only perhaps by some special role troops.

[trance]

Nevertheless, in the units I served in during deployment, weight lifting was a major pass time and so everyone became much, much stronger. As an example, I maxed out my bench press in Afghanistan at 265 lbs. I was all proud of myself, but actually I was pretty average. Most guys were doing over 300 pounds. And the peculiar thing about your environment and the patrolling means you're not putting on excessive weight normally associated with bulking. In the States when I lift heavy I'm typically 190 lbs give or take four or five pounds. In Afghan/Iraq I was usually hovering around 170-175 lbs. I'm 5'9", most guys were about my height.

On another note we had guy in my battalion that was like 6'8" or some such and he was absolutely considered a liability. First, he was not even allowed to go on the MEU because he was too big for ship life. Second, when we went to Afghanistan he actually had to sign a waiver saying he was opening himself to more risk because of his size-- principally because he may not have fit in a Huey if he needed to be MEDEVACed and the closest bird was a gunship. Carrying an average size male that is wounded is already a horribly difficult experience. Doing it with someone that size is almost impossible. Not to mention all the problems he had finding cover. I remember observing for his squad on a company attack and following them through some defilade they used to get closer to an objective. All the other Marines were well covered in the dry creek that we moved through except him. He towered above everyone else and, if there was an enemy, they'd have seen him and opened fire long before we were in our final assault position. Even though he was crouched over the entire way. He was simply too f'ing tall.

Wow, and I thought I was pretty strong with my 250. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, during my time spent at a gym on-barracks I saw some of the craziest physiques I've seen. When working out is like half of the fun you get to have, maybe extreme results are to be expected.

Anyway, the only ones sporting "olympic" physiques are the ones who are attached to some sports batallion or something. But yeah, many soldiers have quite incredible physical condition, especially since they are extremely proficient in doing that which many aren't used to - wander far with really big things attached to their bodies (other than their balls) and the physical versatility that is combat.

As for "exoskeletons" it's not needed. What is needed is higher quality equipment that is lighter than what is currently used. Exeskeletons are going to be used where they are needed: loading stuff.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I don't know about Olympic athlete. They are certainly in excellent condition, but that's a pretty bold claim.

Anyway, size is not something that is desired at all. And, at least in the United States, the US military is a relative reflection of the population at large. You get all sorts of sizes of people, but more often than not your average height is going to mirror the average height of the population. Most of the guys in the Marine Corps were roughly between 5'9" and 6'1", give or take an inch here and there. By no means were the biggest, strongest guys the best performers either. For instance, the machine gun section leader in my company was incredibly strong. He could bench over 500 lbs. But he had back problems and the few times he went out on patrol with us it was problematic for him on some occasions. The biggest reason is because, while weight training is effective way to increase strength, there is not a direct correlation to how you perform when you are loaded down with all the equipment, ammo, water etc and asked to go walk for hours on end in bad terrain, in the heat, and all of that. You need a strong back for this stuff, but not everyone focuses their weight training on their back muscles. Likewise powerful traps help offset the immense pain you feel in your traps when you're operating, because a significant amount of weight is focused on that part of your body.

The most important aspect is endurance. Both physical and mental. Sure, you do lots of long distance running, crunches, pull ups, etc, but I've seen many people that perform just around average levels in these events excel when you load them full of weight. I certainly never did the most pull ups, nor did I have the fastest three mile run time. In fact my run times were generally pretty average-- around 23-24 minutes. But most of the guys that could do it in 18 mins usually got smoke checked when you through all the gear on them and told them to run range 400. Endurance is key. And just being able to stomach the consistent, irritating pain that is basically starts 10 minutes after you've left the wire and only gets worse as the seconds tick by. If you look at most professional troops they are not built like body builders. They are more lean and sinewy and while the muscles may not be big, and they may not power lift a metric ton, they are strong enough to perform the tasks required of them repeatedly. That's the most important aspect. I had a Tongan in my fire team who was just stacked muscle on muscle. I once saw him benching. He had 315 on which wasn't too insane, except that he was playing with it like it was nothing. Yet when we geared up and went out he often struggled because he didn't have the proper endurance. He usually suffered more on patrol than my more wiry guy that had a background in baseball. He wasn't nearly as strong as the Tongan, but he could hump a lot of weight for a long time.

Nevertheless, in the units I served in during deployment, weight lifting was a major pass time and so everyone became much, much stronger. As an example, I maxed out my bench press in Afghanistan at 265 lbs. I was all proud of myself, but actually I was pretty average. Most guys were doing over 300 pounds. And the peculiar thing about your environment and the patrolling means you're not putting on excessive weight normally associated with bulking. In the States when I lift heavy I'm typically 190 lbs give or take four or five pounds. In Afghan/Iraq I was usually hovering around 170-175 lbs. I'm 5'9", most guys were about my height.

On another note we had guy in my battalion that was like 6'8" or some such and he was absolutely considered a liability. First, he was not even allowed to go on the MEU because he was too big for ship life. Second, when we went to Afghanistan he actually had to sign a waiver saying he was opening himself to more risk because of his size-- principally because he may not have fit in a Huey if he needed to be MEDEVACed and the closest bird was a gunship. Carrying an average size male that is wounded is already a horribly difficult experience. Doing it with someone that size is almost impossible. Not to mention all the problems he had finding cover. I remember observing for his squad on a company attack and following them through some defilade they used to get closer to an objective. All the other Marines were well covered in the dry creek that we moved through except him. He towered above everyone else and, if there was an enemy, they'd have seen him and opened fire long before we were in our final assault position. Even though he was crouched over the entire way. He was simply too f'ing tall.

Haha yeah in all honesty i think your absolutely right, i'd just finished watching the latest channel 4 documentary following some recruits on their training to earn the Green Beret and was sucked in by the words of one of the training officers. To be fair though indeed, out of the 64 applicants, most already what you'd consider 'fit' only 7 made it through to become a Royal Marine. So yeah i think your totally right there about it being about a state of mind/ endurance.

I mean i'm assuming most 'NATO/Western' armed forces have the same kind of fitness standards and training regimes so it really does put in perspective i think the vast difference between what someone like me considers 'fit' - working out at the gym and home, and well having muscle that 'looks good'- compared to guys like you and others in the armed forces train like and deal with. It's worlds apart really.

It's interesting too when your talking about things like height and people who 'work out' not really translating into the kind of fitness you'd need in a combat situation. I'd never really considered that. So really interesting perspective Jin cheers, i consider myself schooled!

Do you consider though a modern soldiers kit to be too heavy to be actually effective? I've read around the forums so reports from the Pentagon (It may have been you who posted them to be fair- i can't remember) about how in essence we're just piling soldiers too high when their out and about with bulky equipment that's perhaps inefficient (in terms of weight and size) or just unnecessary, was this your experience?

And also- exoskeletons Do you feel their a worthwhile investment?

Nevertheless, in the units I served in during deployment, weight lifting was a major pass time and so everyone became much, much stronger. As an example, I maxed out my bench press in Afghanistan at 265 lbs. I was all proud of myself, but actually I was pretty average. Most guys were doing over 300 pounds. And the peculiar thing about your environment and the patrolling means you're not putting on excessive weight normally associated with bulking. In the States when I lift heavy I'm typically 190 lbs give or take four or five pounds. In Afghan/Iraq I was usually hovering around 170-175 lbs. I'm 5'9", most guys were about my height.

On a final....bloody hell.

All I see is that the development has barely moved forward in decades.

I see possibility for widespread civilian use in near future, albeit still limited because batteries are simply too short lived with present technology.

Military wise, it's still quite far from being useful.

There are things to consider:
1. The thing needs to be durable. Soldiers run, jump, roll around. It must not break down! The lighter it is, the weaker it is. The more advanced it is, the more prone to breaking down it is. Just one of the sensors breaks down due to dust and soldier is stranded.
2. The thing needs to work for many hours non stop, maybe days. No battery today (and unless some amazing breakthrough is done is science, for quite some time) can handle that. Soldier can't open an umbrella with solar colectors in the middle of the battle or look for a plug.
3. The battery needs to be small, durable and well protected. I'm sure you can put a huge battery the size of a backpack on soldiers back, in fact that's on the images you linked. But it's not gonna work in battle, soldier needs to carry gear somewhere, big battery is easier to damage and it defeats it's purpose if the added strenght of the exoskeleton is used to carry itself. And even small battery needs to be able to suffer a lot of punishment without breaking down.
4. Finally, the cost. Let's say the technology is developed for small, long lasting battery in very near future. There are very light materials already. But very expensive. Such exoskeleton wouldn't pay to make for thousands of troops. And soldiers would need extra training to use it, which means more money.

Honestly, I don't even see the point. It would be easier to develop ways to lighten the load that soldiers carry than make soldiers stronger. I am not so sure about soldiers being faster in exoskeleton, as speed depends on individual's ability to "drive" the exoskeleton, maintain balance and agility. What other uses are there for increased strength in moddern battlefield? Taking down houses with one's fist? Throwing big boulders at the Taliban? Throwing grenades farther? Why, when you can use grenade throwers.

As I said, I can see exoskeletons used for carrying stuff in the base, loading artillery guns and other stuff done not in battle. I don't see them being used in near future, on the front lines, before they are made to be affordable and reliable gear. Even then, only perhaps by some special role troops.

To be honest some very good points, that i won't refute. Again i'm not too clued up on the practical application of an exoskeleton. As far as i can tell, their being aimed at/used in the Navy for heavy lifting/engineering aids potentially for emergencies.

For the army, their hoping it to be again in the practical short term basically help when soldiers are travelling. Allowing dismounted soldiers in rugged terrain to effectively carry more supplies, heavier equipment etc more efficiently. Since i know from a UK perspective having heli-support was considered incredibly risky as just one downed Chinook would have rendered British efforts in Helmand untenable (political fall-out as well as recovery implications)

I think though in the two above limited applications, they as you said could be quite useful (Basically lifting)- the US Talos and other versions seem to be more 'sci-fi' in terms of having some kind of combat suit- but again i can't see that honestly being available in the short term. I can kind of see what their after- allowing soldiers to carry far more and heavier protection in CQB- means i suppose less need for other kinds of support. But yeah...can't see them doing well.

What's really interesting is what NASA and the EU Space agency are doing with exoskeletons- their some really interesting applications being looked into there, though that's for another thread .

[Captain Jin]

I mean i'm assuming most 'NATO/Western' armed forces have the same kind of fitness standards and training regimes so it really does put in perspective i think the vast difference between what someone like me considers 'fit' - working out at the gym and home, and well having muscle that 'looks good'- compared to guys like you and others in the armed forces train like and deal with. It's worlds apart really.

To be honest I think the fitness requirements for the Brits are higher than for the the US. Royal Marines are typically fitter than their US counterparts. Same goes for the UK Army versus the US Army.

Do you consider though a modern soldiers kit to be too heavy to be actually effective? I've read around the forums so reports from the Pentagon (It may have been you who posted them to be fair- i can't remember) about how in essence we're just piling soldiers too high when their out and about with bulky equipment that's perhaps inefficient (in terms of weight and size) or just unnecessary, was this your experience?

It's definitely too much weight. You may have seen me complain about it before. Essentially anything that ever seems to be effective at some point along the line the Pentagon makes it a requirement forever and ever. An example of this would ECM devices that countered radio detonated IEDs. Crucial development in Iraq that helped dramatically drop the rate of successful IED detonations. Why? Because that was their primary means of initiating a device. In Afghanistan, not so much. The most common technique there is victim operated. Yet two ECM units per patrol were required. Now I get that, and to be honest I would have brought them out the vast majority of the time anyway because it's better safe than sorry. But this policy was essentially non-negotiable so no matter the nature of your mission you were packing these heavy ass backpacks.

Another example... metal detectors. Pretty much never used in Iraq. Became required gear in Afghanistan. Why? The most common enemy TTP was to emplace IEDs much like one might emplace a mine field. So while in Iraq you were always concerned about a secondary or tertiary device when one was found (either through keen observation or it detonating), the common trait in Afghanistan was "Where there is on IED there are two and where there are two there are ten". So we countered that by employing combat engineers at the head of every patrol (unheard of for the most part in Iraq). Up front sweeping with metal detectors because there were usually metal component in the IEDs. So how'd they counter that? They stopped putting metal materials in their IEDs. We developed some techniques to counter that and they countered us again (I don't want to go into details about that). Needless to say, regardless of how effective or ineffective the metal detectors were you HAD to have them. More often than not the best way to confirm the existence of an IED was to use an incredibly cheap little device troops created in the field-- a telescopic pole with a hook on the end. This was used to interrogate the suspected device. Or for the truly ambitious, you had the good old finger sweep method. Although engineers were discouraged from doing that.

There is other stuff too course. The most famous example being the added armor given to us after the hullaballoo that went up in the States about our troops not having body armor. I think this was a perversion of the original concern, not having armored vehicles in an environment strewn with IEDs. Anyway that resulted in the addition of a side plates (not a bad thing), but also more kevlar attachments to the body armor itself which ultimately ended up being incredibly inconvenient and ridiculous and of course eventually not made to be a total requirement.

The laughable thing is that they are so excited to rush new kit out before it's truly effective. Or, they refuse to think that a simple device created by us dumb grunts can be better than their hyper expensive technology. Which is why we have expensive dogs trained for finding IEDs even though they're really not very good at it (and I have to lose a Marine for most of the pre-deployment workup so he can go learn to be the dog handler), and why we have the metal detectors and so forth. Because even though our sickling method is more or less endorsed and taught, it's the equivalent of poking a bomb with a stick. The common adage is "It's just more tools for your tool box". That's all well and good until you're required to carry all of it at one time.

A final example... a big operation we were doing for weeks out in Kajaki district. Battalion gave us these big fancy collapsible ladders we were supposed to bring with us to get over walls. I remembered training to use them when we got in country. We were doing the practical application portion and one of the ladders came a part while one of my guys was climbing up. Some jerk off likely designed them and sold a crap load of over priced ones to one or more services. I refused to take them. They were bulky, could not be carried in any way by a single person with all their other kit (But Sergeant! they have a 'convenient carry handle'). Oh and they weighed over 50 lbs at least. How did we mend this problem? Command said you must have something that will let you get over the walls. I gave every other guy in my squad two or three tent stakes. When we needed to get over walls we just hammered them into the wall and climbed up. I'm not saying it was perfect. It was certainly tough to do. But it worked and it weighed nothing by comparison and took up literally no space.

The biggest problem these days is we're so risk averse. So if anything is successful it becomes required. Forever.

And also- exoskeletons Do you feel their a worthwhile investment?

Maybe if we could get the stuff they have in HALO. I don't know. I don't trust the stuff because everything fancy and advanced breaks. And breaks a lot. Just keeping trucks running in those countries could be notoriously difficult. I can't imagine the logistics and requirements of trying to keep an exo-skeleton for every individual well-serviced. And we'd likely get so dependent on them that if you didn't have replacements then what? You're combat ineffective even though you have a healthy trigger puller. Why? Well his personal kit is designed with the idea in mind that his skeleton can heft the weight. And it's probably doctrine that no one goes out without an exoskeleton so since Jackson's exoskeleton is broken and they don't have the repair parts for three days you just don't get to take Jackson out on patrol. Or Jackson borrows Wilson's exo-suit, but then that breaks down faster from overuse. Etc. etc. You get the point.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Maybe if we could get the stuff they have in HALO. I don't know. I don't trust the stuff because everything fancy and advanced breaks. And breaks a lot. Just keeping trucks running in those countries could be notoriously difficult. I can't imagine the logistics and requirements of trying to keep an exo-skeleton for every individual well-serviced. And we'd likely get so dependent on them that if you didn't have replacements then what? You're combat ineffective even though you have a healthy trigger puller. Why? Well his personal kit is designed with the idea in mind that his skeleton can heft the weight. And it's probably doctrine that no one goes out without an exoskeleton so since Jackson's exoskeleton is broken and they don't have the repair parts for three days you just don't get to take Jackson out on patrol. Or Jackson borrows Wilson's exo-suit, but then that breaks down faster from overuse. Etc. etc. You get the point.

I see your point if you cant do the basics then everything else is a pile of ****. Keep it simple keep it effective then everyone can do their job safely.

The worst thing I ever saw was some guy managed to convince customers that he had very good bomb detectors. They were not bomb detectors at all they were golf ball finders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-of-fraud.html

Can always be glad that they were not part of front line kit in an active war zone.

The most common example in modern history of things failing in the field are usually Guns. The SA80 was not that good a gun when it came out and became better after it was adjusted. The M16 was a death trap in Vietnam although it is a good gun now, it was known for jamming and soldiers ended up throwing them away. If I was in the military and they had just purchased any new weapons I would feel very wary as to their quality and ability to maintain fire without jamming in combat situation which always seem to be in the most extreme conditions of arid or humid heat until at least proven otherwise.