This is getting silly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A typical infantry company of roughly 150 soldiers requires more than 6,600 batteries, weighing more than 1,400 pounds, for 72 hours of operation. All that weight slows down soldiers on foot, tethers them to constant resupply, and contributes to a rash of muscular and skeletal injuries caused by excessively heavy packs.</div></div>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...tm_medium=email
Maybe that works in the desert, or in Afghan, but it wont cut it in the jungle or worse, the arctic.
We are assuming that we wont ever have to fight anywhere but the middle east, because of that, we are screwing ourselves.
What happens if we have to fight somewhere where troops will have to spend 30-45 days in the field like Vietnam.
Thats over 9 lbs per soldier just in batteries. That's about 300 rounds of 5.56 ammo.
What happens when batteries fail, (don't think that happens take a two week cross country ski trip above the acrtic circle).
Solar panels?????? Yeah that will work in the jungles or the arctic where in the winter you may only get a couple hours of sunshine, then the sun is at too much of an angle to do you any goot.
Don't they teach soldiers how to use a map and compass anymore. (They don't require batteries and don't weigh nothing).
How about ranging, don't they teach ranging with the front sight, or using a map any more.
Maybe I'm too old fashion, but seems to me getting rid of those electronic gismos and the batteries to support them means more ammo and more water which comes in pretty handy every now and then for the infantryman.
We are too dependant on being resupplied at our becon call, trust me, that doesn't always happen. We don't always get the choice of fighting weather.
So much for being a global army.
So that's my Saturday afternoon rant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A typical infantry company of roughly 150 soldiers requires more than 6,600 batteries, weighing more than 1,400 pounds, for 72 hours of operation. All that weight slows down soldiers on foot, tethers them to constant resupply, and contributes to a rash of muscular and skeletal injuries caused by excessively heavy packs.</div></div>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...tm_medium=email
Maybe that works in the desert, or in Afghan, but it wont cut it in the jungle or worse, the arctic.
We are assuming that we wont ever have to fight anywhere but the middle east, because of that, we are screwing ourselves.
What happens if we have to fight somewhere where troops will have to spend 30-45 days in the field like Vietnam.
Thats over 9 lbs per soldier just in batteries. That's about 300 rounds of 5.56 ammo.
What happens when batteries fail, (don't think that happens take a two week cross country ski trip above the acrtic circle).
Solar panels?????? Yeah that will work in the jungles or the arctic where in the winter you may only get a couple hours of sunshine, then the sun is at too much of an angle to do you any goot.
Don't they teach soldiers how to use a map and compass anymore. (They don't require batteries and don't weigh nothing).
How about ranging, don't they teach ranging with the front sight, or using a map any more.
Maybe I'm too old fashion, but seems to me getting rid of those electronic gismos and the batteries to support them means more ammo and more water which comes in pretty handy every now and then for the infantryman.
We are too dependant on being resupplied at our becon call, trust me, that doesn't always happen. We don't always get the choice of fighting weather.
So much for being a global army.
So that's my Saturday afternoon rant.