Army to battle-test lighter, more mobile gear - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Army to battle-test lighter, more mobile gear

Pfc. Justin Kalenits had nowhere to go when the Taliban opened fire.

Carrying more than 100 pounds of gear, he struggled to keep his balance on the narrow foot trail. To his right was a jagged rock face; to his left, a steep drop-off.

“There were bullets everywhere,” Kalenits said. A bullet knocked off his helmet. Worse was coming.

A large enemy force fired machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades from an adjacent hillside, pinning down the small American and Afghan army patrol.

Having left behind their M240 machine gun, which is their primary support weapon, as well as side plates to cut down on the weight they were carrying, the platoon was short on protection and firepower.

“We were fighting as hard as we could,” said Kalenits, of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

But they were trapped. The weight of their battle rattle made it impossible for them to run down the steep mountainside.

To escape, Kalenits and a few others scooted down on their backs, drawing fire as they went.

One enemy bullet pierced Kalenits’ pelvis; his front and rear body armor stopped three more.

Finally, an American jet arrived after dark and ended the battle with a series of 2,000-pound bombs. Of the 12-man patrol, six were killed and six severely wounded.

Now the Army is trying a new approach to lighten the load for troops patrolling the crags and mountain passes of Afghanistan. In a few weeks, a battalion’s worth of soldiers in Combined Joint Task Force 101 in Afghanistan will get scaled-down plate carriers, lighter plates, new packs and new boots, all intended to subtract at least 20 pounds from their 60- to 130-pound combat loads.

The move is part of a battlefield assessment aimed at finding new ways to thwart a timeless foe of professional soldiers: weight.

Carrying too much equipment can be as deadly as enemy bullets, particularly when soldiers are trying to outmaneuver Taliban fighters accustomed to traveling light in the most extreme conditions of their homeland, Col. Bob Shaw, commander of the Asymmetric Warfare Group, told Army Times in a recent interview.

“What are we doing? We’ve got the enemy running around in a man dress with a gun and flip-flops, able to run up and down the mountains because they live there,” he said. “They’ve got the advantage on us, especially if we are weighted down with all this gear. ...

“Endurance, agility, being an effective soldier in the mountains — it really has to do with what’s on your back.”

With forces spread out in small combat outposts across Afghanistan, Army leaders are realizing that the current emphasis on armor protection for soldiers may be ill-suited for the fight in Afghanistan, where success often depends on how fast and how far infantrymen can move on foot.

This is what the AWG, and a handful of Army organizations, hope to prove at the end of a 60-day battlefield assessment in Afghanistan.

“There are mind-sets that need to change — the one-size-fits-all for every environment. Well, maybe there are other answers out there, and that is what we are starting to look at,” Shaw said. “We think there is a good 20 pounds that can be saved. ... Every ounce counts.”

Combat troops carry heavy loads in Iraq, too, but the extra ammunition, fresh batteries and water are usually as close as the nearest vehicle.

Grunts operating in remote places like the Korengal Valley must leave their combat outposts with everything they need for three days of battle strapped, tied or buckled to their bodies.

They haul extra bullets, fragmentation grenades, mortar rounds, weapons, body armor, food and water up steep ascents where the thinner air forces even the fittest specimens to suck wind.

“The guy who is suffering most under soldiers’ load right now is a dismounted soldier walking in Afghanistan,” said Jim Stone, who runs the Soldier Requirements Division for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga.

Despite different environments, combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan wear the Improved Outer Tactical Vest. The Army introduced the streamlined IOTV design in 2007 in an effort to pull together piecemeal upgrades to the older Interceptor vest, such as the two side-plate carriers the service added in 2006. The side-opening design features a cummerbund waist fastener to distribute weight more effectively.

It offers effective protection, but at an average weight of 30 pounds, commanders from CJTF101 in Afghanistan have found that the vest is too heavy for extended dismounted operations on rugged terrain, Army officials maintain.

This is a constant dilemma for Army combat developers, who try to balance the right amount of armor protection at a weight that still allows a soldier to move quickly in battle.

“I can protect them completely, but they are not very effective,” Stone said. “In some cases, mobility does equal survivability.”

At the heart of the assessment is lightweight, commercially available gear. The AWG selected each piece of equipment to shave as much weight as possible off the soldier load without eliminating battlefield necessities.

The main weight savings will come from soldiers wearing the Modular Body Armor Vest instead of the heavier IOTV.

The MBAV plate carrier, made by Eagle Industries, is standard issue to special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment. The Marine Corps also fielded about 10,000 MBAVs last year as an interim measure while it develops a line of body armor that includes a full-coverage vest and a scalable plate carrier.

The MBAV doesn’t offer as much armor coverage as the IOTV, but it’s about 13 pounds lighter when equipped with its soft armor inserts and front and back armor plates. It’s designed to protect the vital areas in the front and back against rifle fire, as opposed to shrapnel from improvised explosive devices.

The plate carrier’s design includes a cummerbund for a snug fit and loop attachment points for ammo and accessory pouches.

It’s unclear whether the Army will adopt a plate carrier, but the Infantry Center is already working on a new requirement for lighter-weight body armor options.

“The requirement we are working on is to look at a way I can protect the vital areas and not weigh so much,” Stone said.

Program Executive Office Soldier is also thinking about what the assessment’s outcome might mean in the long term.

“We are potentially going to end up with some modular, unique pieces of equipment because the environment in Afghanistan says, hey, you need to be able to run after that guy,” PEO Soldier commander Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller told Army Times.

“Look at what the Marines have. They have modular concept. They have an IOTV equivalent, and they have what they call a plate carrier. We are looking at that same capability.”

The assessment kit includes alternatives in lightweight long underwear, knee and elbow pads, Global Positioning Systems, weapons optics, flashlights and hiking boots built for speed and traction. Some items may not be lighter, but will be designed to perform better than current gear. These include assault packs crafted to ride more comfortably up against body armor, and ammo and gear pouches on a detachable chest rig similar to those used by special operations forces.

“We are not trying to say what is the best boot or what is the best plate,” Maj. Jeff Hudson of AWG said. “We are looking at representative samples in use by someone currently or available off the shelf that can reduce the soldier’s weight. ... How does weight impact soldier performance in regards to survivability, lethality and mobility?”

The answer seems obvious to Kalenits, still recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Because of his mountain experience, the AWG asked him in January for his opinion of the gear. “I don’t know if being lighter would have saved our lives that day, but we definitely would have been able to move faster,” he told Army Times. “I think it is going to do a lot of good there. The Korengal is horrible.”

AWG has enlisted the help of Johns Hopkins University to design an assessment that would yield data rather than anecdotal findings. The unit also did a preassessment at Fort Meade, Md., to gather preliminary data and finalize equipment selections. A nine-man infantry squad and a machine-gun team ran through two weeks of obstacle courses and stress tests, in combination with marksmanship events, to gather baseline data.

“Some of the information was data we knew we couldn’t get in Afghanistan, such as heart rate,” said Master Sgt. Dave Roels, who is part of the assessment team that will go into Afghanistan.

Roels and other members of the AWG assessment team take frequent trips to Afghanistan, where they embed with units and walk the same terrain as the soldiers.

“We have a pretty good idea that these boots are going to work or that this flashlight is going to work because we use them ourselves,” Roels said, but the seasoned NCO stressed that “you have to be able to show people” the data to back up the assessment.

The Army’s Rapid Equipping Force ordered more than 500 of the assessment kits, and Army Test and Evaluation Command safety-certified the gear to ensure it was ready for combat. Concerns over trading soldier safety for a lighter load continue to arise, however.

“The Army has decided to further test some of the items and, therefore, there may be a slight delay in getting the equipment forward,” Shaw said March 13, describing the 11th-hour decision.

Among the items in the kit slated for more testing include alternative body armor plates, which have the same National Institute of Justice Level 4 Certification as the Enhanced Soldier Protective Inserts, but are lighter.

Army acquisition officials stressed they fully support the battlefield assessment, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.

“The Army has a responsibility to ensure the commanders and soldiers on the ground receive safe, suitable and effective equipment to perform their mission,” he said.

Shaw said he hopes the testing will cause only a slight delay.

“The AWG is standing by, ready to go,” he said. “We are in place forward and ready to begin when the Army tells us they are ready.”

The battlefield assessment isn’t simply about buying lightweight equipment. “Half that battle is the nonmaterial side,” Hudson said.

It doesn’t do any good for the Army to issue a 20-pound plate carrier if leaders tell soldiers, “Since we just took 10 pounds off of body armor, let’s add another 400 rounds of 7.62mm ammo,” PEO Soldier Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman said. “It is a different environment when you get up in those mountains; it’s different than walking the streets of Baghdad.”

The assessment team will also stress ways that commanders and soldiers can fight smarter on those grueling patrols, Roels said. “We are going to talk fire-discipline and fire-control matters ... make every round count,” Roels said. “We are going talk about planning a route” to ensure patrols are as efficient as possible.

Once the data is gathered in Afghanistan, Johns Hopkins will organize the information taken from the video and audio material and soldier surveys into a “utility assessment report,” Shaw said.

“I’m hoping it is going to be ready before the fall; we are going to push for it as soon as we can get it,” Shaw said. From there, it is a recommendation up to the Army.

“We are not looking for the 100 percent solution. We are looking at what is going to work today for the soldier, and, over time, make it better.”

Related reading

• Field gear can be dangerously heavy, general testifies