'Each Soldier Carries About 40 kg In Battle': Why The Army Cannot Downsize

[Joe Shearer]

This is a somewhat clever tactic by the IA that I'm sure will get some traction from those who are less well versed in the nuances of this debate.

The fact is, what is being proposed (trimming the "fat") is NOT about cutting men out of a platoon and thus asking the induvidual units to make do with less numbers- that is a most absurd assertion. No, what is being asked of the IA is to trim redundant SUPPORT staff ie orderlies, cooks, porters etc. If I had it my way, entire brigades would be culled with their requsite support infrastructure also;I keep saying the IA should be cut by 30% across the board but alas.


This is a very typical mindset we are seeing from senior career officers who will fight for their lot, as well they should, but this is a fight I am expecting them to lose in the long term. The current strength is simply unsustainable- the IA is consuming >50% of the ENTIRE defence budget of India but look at the pathetic state they are in, still straight out of WW1 in some cases. The PLA has learnt their lesson and are themselves cutting their force levels and investing in force multipliers- when is the last time you heard any IA brass utter that term? The IAF and IN talk about them all the time but never the IA.

It is no longer numbers alone that will win you a war, I don't see why the IA is so blind to this reality.

I'm glad I'm not on this forum on a regular basis. It'd be very costly for my health.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I am just wondering what happened to F-INSAS after all these years

F-INSAS was offically broken into two parts a few years back- BMS (battle managment systems) and the personal equipment modernisation. The former is greater than 80% implemented, the latter has barely gone anywhere.

 

[Omega007]

As an infantry man myself, the first thing come to my mind after reading this is.............THIS IS CRAZY.

1400 round of LMG ammo on top of the 200 or so individual carries is the platoon level ammo reserve. We don't carry these much in battle.

Actually,it should appear even crazier to you than you currently think!!Why??Just take another look at the article!!If it is to be believed,then the figure of 1400 LMG rounds is not for a 30 man rifle platoon as you implied, but for a 10 man rifle section!!And each platoon has 3 such sections in them!!So if we are to go by what's been written in this piece,then the number of LMG rounds issued per a rifle platoon might very well be 3 times as much than quoted in this article!!

 

[Armani]

"Apart from this, each solider carries his personal weapon - either an AK-47 or INSAS and ammunition on himself. All these add up to about 40 kg carried by each solider," the commander said.

I don't think Army uses 47s. It's the AKM (sometimes AK-103, but I believe that's just for RR) and the INSAS variants.

^^ guy's from CoBRA, but couldn't find any other pics of INSAS w/ UBGL right now.

Btw, @Abingdonboy @Unknowncommando
Maybe I didn't notice this earlier, but why does this guy's helmet appear to be the MARPAT camo? The helmet is the usual one though...is IA also evaluating MARPAT?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Maybe I didn't notice this earlier, but why does this guy's helmet appear to be the MARPAT camo? The helmet is the usual one though...is IA also evaluating MARPAT?

It's something that has been played around with for a while now, at first it was just SFs but during the Nepal releif ops last year I had seen members of the AMC sporting the woodland MARPAT also.

PARA (SF) with woodland MARPAT:

(^training Punjab SWAT)


Late Captain Pawan Kumar:

Indian Navy SF (MARCOs):

in Kashmir:

In Yeman:

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Actually,it should appear even crazier to you than you currently think!!Why??Just take another look at the article!!If it is to be believed,then the figure of 1400 LMG rounds is not for a 30 man rifle platoon as you implied, but for a 10 man rifle section!!And each platoon has 3 such sections in them!!So if we are to go by what's been written in this piece,then the number of LMG rounds issued per a rifle platoon might very well be 3 times as much than quoted in this article!!

Can this be true- I find It hard to believe is It that 5.56mm ammo is not very efficient so they need to carry as much- I think this is insane- something seriously needs to be done to increase force multipliers and artillery strength-

 

[Omega007]

Can this be true- I find It hard to believe is It that 5.56mm ammo is not very efficient so they need to carry as much- I think this is insane- something seriously needs to be done to increase force multipliers and artillery strength-

I don't know really,my comment was based solely on the figures qouted in this piece.And as for ineffectiveness of 5.56 NATO ammunitions,well,obviously it has got less powers compared to the M80 rounds,but doesn't mean they are ineffective.And with the advent heavier 77 grains rounds with vastly superior ballistic coefficent figures these days,I don't think it would be such big of a problem as it's made out to be.

 

[asad71]

'Each Soldier Carries About 40 kg In Battle': Why The Army Cannot Downsize
All India | Written by Sudhi Ranjan Sen | Updated: March 08, 2016 08:07 IST

Soldiers in a section carry 1400 rounds of LMG ammunition packed in 34 magazines on them.


NEW DELHI:

The scope to cut down the manpower in the Army does not exist, a top commander in the Army has told NDTV. Just last week, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had said "there is need to cut down on flab" given the steady increase in salary and pension bill of the military.

The Army, about 1.2 million strong, is the obvious target of the cut down. An internal exercise of the Army, on the contrary, has shown that over the years, the responsibilities of individual soldiers have doubled as has the individual load carried by them in battle situations.

"Across the world soldiers on an average carry one third their body weight, the Indian solider far exceeds this, and it has started to impinge on maneuverability," the senior commander said.


The exercise, shared with NDTV, shows a section - 10 men per section - of the infantry now carries with it two Light Machine Guns (LMG) , one Rocket Launcher, besides personal weapons. Each LMG has about 700 rounds on the weapon and another 500 rounds is distributed and carried separately by soldiers of the section.

In all, soldiers in a section carry 1400 rounds of LMG ammunition packed in 34 magazines on them. Besides, four rockets carried with the launcher, the section carries another six rounds on them.

"Apart from this, each solider carries his personal weapon - either an AK-47 or INSAS and ammunition on himself. All these add up to about 40 kg carried by each solider," the commander said.

More importantly, out of 10 soldiers, four are required to man the LMGs and the rocket launchers, leaving six men to carry out an assault.

"The bayonet strength - soldiers available to charge or storm into features - is about six soldiers per section, the bare minimum required to carry out an assault," the commander said.

At the Platoon level or at the Regiment Level, comprising four combat companies - one Support and Logistic Company and Headquarter Company - this ratio gets even more skewed.

Each regiment carries with it battle field surveillance radars, snipers with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, three Multi-Barrel Grenade Launchers (MBGL), three Automatic Grenade Launchers (AGL) and ammunition besides Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs). Each infantry unit also carries an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and heavy communication equipment.

"At the regiment level the manpower crunch is starker and pressure even more severe," the commander said. "Over the years, vehicle drivers for instance have been trained as electricians, or to fire ATGM, man radars, double up as nursing assistant for injuries since number of battlefield nursing attendants have been cut down. Some are trained as mechanics to repair vehicles on the spot," the officer said and added "every infantry unit has been skinned, flab doesn't exist."

Similarly, artillery and mechanised units have been crunched and the number of men in non-combat supply and service arms - like Army Supply Corps, Ordnance - have been cut over the years.

"Unless there is a quantum jump in the fire power and real time surveillance equipment with each unit it is difficult to imagine where the cut down can happen," the commander said.
Story First Published:March 08, 2016 01:16 IST

'Each Soldier Carries About 40 kg In Battle': Why The Army Cannot Downsize

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Levina @anant_s @third eye @Joe Shearer @Taygibay @Ind4Ever @cerberus @knight11 @Roybot @Water Car Engineer @ni8mare

1.Into battle the soldier needs to carry the clumsy and heavy - but most essential digging tools. These days wireless sets and helmets are lighter, but they do have weight. In approach marches, the infantryman carries a big pack containing blanket, ground sheet, towel and other essentials laid down. Makes the big pack a heavy thing.
2. However, it has to be said that the soldier's load can hardly be reduced without reducing his combat effectiveness.

 

[That Guy]

You know, if India cut down it's infantry numbers by, let's say a third, and used the freed up money to upgrade their infantry, India could very well have one of the best equipped and trained military force in the world, and still have one of the largest forces in the world as well.

 

[That Guy]

@Joe Shearer Question, how wide spread is the use of the Tavor in the Indian military? I heard a rumor a while back that India was seriously considering it as a new standard rifle, across the board.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

F-INSAS was offically broken into two parts a few years back- BMS (battle managment systems) and the personal equipment modernisation. The former is greater than 80% implemented, the latter has barely gone anywhere.

The Personal Equipment modification if implemented can lead to no new troop increase right. That's the one we should have been focussing on. Atleast troops in Kashmir must be fitted with PEM for now. The wasted financial amount returned could be used for this atleast.

 

[doppelganger]

Parik's article is right but incomplete so that regarding all 3 answers, I wholly
disagree and so do all technical data and studies since the 19th century, BTW!

Downsizing here is meant as the diminution of the battle load of soldiers. This is,
as said, an old trend or at least a worry amongst command planners but the exact
opposite has happened on the battlefield especially in the last 30-40 years. But
before I proceed, let me reveal a useful precision : my bodyweight has never left
the 87-92 kilos range* since the end of adolescence and I don't mean fat. I'm 1,78m.
I have seen many small and rugged men with high carrying ratios but still, to be
realistic and despite the numerous pics on the internet showing Asia's attempts at it,
you pack more on a semi trailer truck than on a moped or scooter. 40 kgs is still too much!

In 1885, a German study showed that in low to moderate temperatures, a trained soldier
could carry 22kgs for 24 kms. The same carry done under hot temperatures resulted in
such a strain on the organism that up to 24 hours of rest were required to recuperate.
At 31 kilos, however the low to moderate case yielded similar results to the 22kgs hot one
and those 31 kgs at hot temps level produced immediate and lasting effects. What's more,
physical training did nothing to help and 22kgs was recommended although never applied
By 1985**, a recent trend had more weight than 31 kgs appear on the average troop.
American soldiers on missions of 2 to 3 days carried over 45 kilos in some cases!!!
It is still the case today, was in A-Stan for instance. Tougher units may see up to 2/3-3/4
of bodyweight loads on some men when big or numerous weapons are involved. Count
in a daily re-supply of food and ammunition to support this paradigm.

Of course, this load varies in levels according to mission segments :
Fighting load of 25-30 kgs is used for contact or intense parts; still over 30% BodyWeight;
Approach load of 42-46 kgs adds the necessary eat, stay warm, sleep kit; 50-55 % BW;
Emergency load get right below 60 kgs and thus we found or 72 or 73 % of BW, three fourths!!!
One needs not be very good at maths to understand how this conflicts with the century old
German study .
All of the above is found here : The Infantryman's Combat Load


The reasons for this over-carry situation are numerous. Apart from commanders ignoring studies
as found prior, there is the technology aspect. To reach the loads indicated above, we have added
radios for everyone, for example. In WWI, communication equipments were hard wired and fixed.
In WWII, platoons and soon after squads gained radios for the whole unit . Since, programs such
as FELIN in the French Armed Forces have made comms part of the individual equipment.
Weapons have evolved in tech too and similarly rely on electronics and both them and the radios
run on batteries. Vehicles have adapted too, becoming life bases with reserves and recharge stations
but the combats loads mentioned in my first part were precisely those concerned with what happens
when the vehicles reach their maximum extent & fall behind in capacities to provide in some way.
Another source of weight increase was brought by the protection level rising immensely. When I be-
gan serving at the time of that document above, there were no flak jackets and the likes. Helmet was it!
Nowadays, very few troops in a modern military go about without body protection gear. Favouring fire
power also has the same result. Three belts of 7,62 outweigh three belts of 5,56 no matter where.

Is there any chance that the load will go back down? Resounding NO, right there! In fact, the studies
for smaller transports ( VHM , HB Bv-206 or quads ), roboticized ground and air mules, exo-squeletons
and the likes point to the trend of high loads being entirely accepted as solutions to accompany it are
more actively sought than ways to backtrack from it.

Are there different options? It all depends on what past military culture and present equipment of your
troops allow.
If your soldiers carry loads near those mentioned but without the advantages explicitly listed ( high tech
gear and full protection / frequent replenishment ), you really need to scale back! Something is wrong.
Doing so may not be so hard either if your fighters have a great relation to their environment. In A-Stan,
in Pakistan, in some parts of India and historically in Indochine/Vietnam, light and very lightly equipped
combattants have shown victory ensuring efficiency ... mostly because they were on their home turf.
The point that my analysis wanted to uncover is that the high load option is an expeditionary practice!

A soldier in a hard built border post does not need an individual radio but a SFs operative thousands
of klicks from base needs a satellite transmission suitcase. Protective gear is useful but so is mobility
especially if added to terrain familiarity as you patrol your youth's playground mountain range. And if
you're not likely to find support in a land with minimal to none electricity infrastructure, empty batteries
will turn those NVG into a rock of sort, much less useful than knowing enemy routes and hiding spots.

If you do choose to accept the high load tactic, here is the conundrum : for every bit of tech, for every
10 kilos over that old 22 Deutsch original, for every bit of firepower, you'll have to add a helo or some
other mass moving asset. Considering how long procurements take in the specific case of India, one
is left to wonder if the soldiers won't be dead under that load by then ... dead of old age that is!!!

But past this quip, there is an Indian way to be found. Lightening the load in Bharat is not an ISO search
IMHoO. That SFs dedicated to long missions and combatting terrorism should be equipped as their
Occidental counterparts makes sense if the means are also copied from the West. Those serving in an
Infantry regiment faced with fighting the Chinese in a plain as in Waterloo or Antietam should not.
The Indian Navy should pursue high tech as that brings a load off personnels, if mostly in numbers. So
should the IAF. The rest of the troops could find it easier however to choose different paths.
Here, a Sikh or Gorkha unit may grab a few technological bricks while still relying on traditional skills.
There, the soldiers' job may benefit a lot more from a road and electrical supply being constructed.
In some place, the two might be exclusive so that traditional troops could be replaced by surveillance
( or whole ISR suites ) drones and aircrafts with SFs trained and equipped QRF units also gaining in
men to mission ratio as the Navy with yet again the cost in cash likely rising in reaction.
A comprehensive transformation should only copy foreign solutions when it brings a plus value.

Still, to close the loop, I'll re-adress our 3 friends :
When was the last time you lugged 44 kilos around for a day or two and how well did that go for you?

Just sayin' no offense and great day all, Tay.

Fantastic read @Taygibay

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.

 

[Taygibay]

YVW mate! It always surprises me how little historic perspective and tactical differentiation
is actually revealed in mil discussions. Not only is this the stuff that shapes armed forces
evolutions ( NATO has a whole command for it ) but also, in that regard, one size does not fit all.

If I wasn't a Westerner, I'd expect more diversity and less keeping up with the Joneses from my nation.

Just sayin' and all the best to you and yours, Tay.

 

[doppelganger]

YVW mate! It always surprises me how little historic perspective and tactical differentiation
is actually revealed in mil discussions. Not only is this the stuff that shapes armed forces
evolutions ( NATO has a whole command for it ) but also, in that regard, one size does not fit all.

If I wasn't a Westerner, I'd expect more diversity and less keeping up with the Joneses from my nation.

Just sayin' and all the best to you and yours, Tay.

As one active American grunt once put it very dourly - making things lighter (and smaller) through technology just means we get to carry more of it!

 

[jhungary]

Actually,it should appear even crazier to you than you currently think!!Why??Just take another look at the article!!If it is to be believed,then the figure of 1400 LMG rounds is not for a 30 man rifle platoon as you implied, but for a 10 man rifle section!!And each platoon has 3 such sections in them!!So if we are to go by what's been written in this piece,then the number of LMG rounds issued per a rifle platoon might very well be 3 times as much than quoted in this article!!

I know, that's why I said that amount of ammunition reserve only appear in Platoon level , not in squad (or section level) mind you, A single platoon in the US army have 4 squad of 9 men + HQ squad. So for a single platoon, we don't just have 33 men, but 43 men instead. And as I said, we don't carry that much in one platoon.