Weight of battle rattle hurting troops effectiveness

Washington Post:

Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials.

Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by the cumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army and Marine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introduce lighter equipment for some U.S. troops.

As the military prepares to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan -- including sending as many as 20,000 more Marines -- fielding a new, lighter vest and helmet is a top priority, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said recently. "We are going to have to lighten our load," he said, after inspecting possible designs during a visit to the Quantico Marine base.

Army leaders and experts say the injuries -- linked to the stress of bearing heavy loads during repeated 12- or 15-month combat tours -- have increased the number of soldiers categorized as "non-deployable." Army personnel reported 257,000 acute orthopedic injuries in 2007, up from 247,000 the previous year.

...

The top U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan, where the bulk of U.S. troops in the country operate, has issued a formal request, known as an operational needs statement, for lighter body armor for troops there. The new equipment, called a "plate carrier," would protect vital organs and weigh less than 20 pounds. It would not include additional pieces that troops currently use to shield sides, shoulders, arms, the groin and other areas -- pieces that, with a helmet, weigh about 35 pounds.

Commanders would determine in what circumstances troops could wear the lighter gear, which would make it easier to maneuver when pursuing insurgents over rugged terrain at high altitudes.

"Our dismounted operations are occurring at very high elevations, 10,000 feet and higher, where the air is thinner and it is difficult already to maneuver. You add to that body armor, ammunition and the full load that soldiers carry -- it is difficult," said a military official familiar with the request. "You are operating against an enemy that is very agile -- running around in tennis shoes, if that -- and they are fleet of foot and can move faster and elude us," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the request had not yet been approved.

...

I blame the Democrats.

They are the ones who insisted on the heavier body armor. They were not so much concerned about the troops but trying to throw obstacles at the Bush administration in order to hamper the war effort as they soured on their vote for the war in Iraq.

The troops have been complaining about the weight of the new armor ever since they got it. It was bad enough in the heat of an Iraq summer, but when you are working in hills and mountains it becomes even more oppressive. It is also dangerous. It hampers maneuverability and the added weight means the troops can also carry less ammo.

Then there are the stress fractures in the feet from carrying such a heavy load. There is more on that in the link above.