Re: Light infantry versus light infantry

--- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:

> Someone quipped once on this list "Why is it the
> _light_ infantry always are
> carrying the huge ass packs?". That's because that's
> the place they carry a
> lot of what they might need - since the support
> train is smaller for these
> forces. "Light" infantry is (in one sense) a
> misnomer. 

Part of the problem is with the hooah factor.  "You're
not a real man unless you've got 60 lbs of crap in
your pack."  "Yeah, well I got 70 lbs."  "Fine, well
I'll throw in another 20 in mine.  Now I got 80 lbs." 
And so on--I've heard of people getting stress
fractures in the hips as a result of this stupidity. 
Another part of the problem is that people carry a
hell of a lot more than they need.  SAS did long-range
recon patrols in Malaysia with less than 20lbs per
man, plus weapon, ammo, and a radio in the team.  The
whole intent of "travel light, freeze at night" has
been perverted into standardized packing lists at the
batallion level which mandates carrying everything
including the kitchen sink and were drafted by tubby
CSMs who certaintly aren't walking anywhere.

> (And of course, "Full Metal" Atkinson  <*Hi Jon!*>
> with his D4 diplomacy and
> D8 or D10 actual knowledge may well tell me I'm

Hey!  It's higher.  I just fumbled!

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.