MCCDC-MRD

COMBAT LOAD REPORT

LCDR Demetri Economos USN

Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Materiel Requirements Division
Quantico, Virginia

31 DEC 2003

0
1. Purpose. To provide Director, Materiel Requirements Division
the current anthropometrical data for height and weight, the
optimum combat load in assault, march, and existence scenarios
(as a function of % body weight for the average Marine), and
recommend a combat load weight and balance figure for future
combat systems based on the optimum loads calculated for the
USMC.

2. Background. Overloading causes fatigue, heat stress, injury,

and performance degradation.

160

120
Weight (lbs)

80

40

0
2
ns

3
uw 983

1
s

03
By ans

am
ks

01
ar

ea
I

II

98
ng tine

'0
ni

99
W
xo

lW

20
e

or

20
ea

s1

n
tn

1
W
m

t1
re

Sa

W
n

sta
K
ol

da
vi
Ro
G

q
za

TC
nd

ai
Vi

Ira

ni
ap
lo

Ci

na
la

JR

ha
N

re
S

lk

K
U

fg
A

G
Fa

Figure 1. Estimated load weights carried on the march by various

infantry units throughout history (modified from Knapik et. al.,
Ref #21).

a. The problem of overloading the infantryman with equipment

can been seen throughout history (Figure 1). Although not
indicated in figure 1, the armies of antiquity traveled with
loads equivalent to modern day armies; however, they offset their
loads utilizing auxiliary transport (carts, animals, porters) in
order to maximize combat effectiveness. Despite modern
technologies (aircraft, wheeled vehicles), the infantryman
continues to carry ever-increasing loads. Identifying the correct
load for the infantryman to carry is essential for optimum
performance effectiveness and mission success.

b. SLA Marshall’s book “Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a

Nation” is the most often cited document regarding combat loading
of the infantryman. The premise of his analysis combines average

1
body weight of soldiers and the percentage of that mean weight
for the optimum load to be carried by the soldier. At the time of
his book (1950) he estimated the average soldier weighed 153.6
pounds and (from his analysis, moderate experimentation, and
experience) concluded that 33% of the body weight of an average
soldier could be carried optimally (equates to 50.7 pounds).

c. More scientific anthropometrical studies have been

performed and indicate that military personnel have increased in
size and weight since the time of Marshall’s book. The last known
study of this type for the Marine Corps was the 1971 MCDEC
(Marine Corps Development and Education Command) evaluation of
components of the 1970 MARCES (Marine Combat Electronic System)
Report (Project 30-69-07). In parts of its conclusions, it stated
that the mean average body weight and height for the USMC as 158
pounds and 68.7 inches, respectively.

d. Up-to-date anthropometrical values become an important

factor when contemplating the development of future combat
systems where weight and occupancy volume become essential
variables in the design and lift capabilities of these future
systems. To that end, the MCCDC-MRD commissioned a study to:

(1) determine the current 50%-ile body weight and height

the Marine Corps.

(2) review the current load scenario definitions for

accuracy.

(3) recommend load weights for the load scenarios.

(4) recommend a combat load weight and balance figure for

combat development.

3. Study Method.

a. Exhaustive literature review covering DoD publications,

military standards, military doctrine publications, scientific
research publications, and commercial periodicals on the issue of
combat loading.

b. Collect height and weight data from the Marsh Center USMC
Manpower database, Quantico, VA and crosscheck with PFT rosters
from commands in Quantico, Virginia, and the School of Infantry-
East Coast, Camp LeJeune, N.C.

c. Calculate the USMC mean average for height and weight.

2
 d. Calculate the optimum load weight for the load scenarios.

e. Calculate load weight and balance figure.

4. Results. All literature reviewed arrived at the same

conclusion: the infantryman is overloaded.

a. Current Army doctrinal publications FM 21-18 (Foot

Marches) and FM 7-10 (Infantry Rifle Company) prescribe weights
of 48 and 72 pounds for the fighting and approach march loads,
respectively. In a scenario defined as Emergency Approach March
Load, higher loads of up to 120 pounds are allowed in conditions
where approach marches are through terrain impassable to
vehicles, or ground/air transport are not available, or when the
mission demands that soldiers be employed as porters (note: enemy
contact should be avoided at the higher load). Although the
rationale behind the numbers was not indicated, it can be assumed
that either Army science or published military standards
influenced the Army’s doctrine.

b. In order to identify the source of the Army’s numbers,

the Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard: Human
Engineering (MIL-STD-1472F) was reviewed. This standard
establishes general human engineering criteria for design and
development of military systems, equipment and facilities. It
recommends no more than 30% of body weight for close combat, and
no more than 45% for marching. Comparing the percentage of body
weight recommended for the load scenarios versus the actual loads
recommended by the Army leads to the conclusion that the Army
based its loads from the MIL-STD and that it assumed an average
soldier weight of 160 pounds (160 x 30% = 48; 160 x 45% = 72).
The MIL-STD-1472F does not define a standard for the emergency
approach march load scenario, but it can be calculated from the
Army’s publication as 75% of the soldier’s body weight, assuming
the 160 pound solider as the average.

c. The next question is how did the Army arrive to its

conclusion that the average soldier weighs 160 pounds? Review of
the Military Handbook: Anthropometry of U.S. Military Personnel
(DOD-HDBK-743A) found a listing of every conceivable
anthropometrical measurement for military personnel of which
stature and body weights are included. Table 1 highlights the
last known weight and height measurements for the military:

Table 1. Highlight of weight and height averages for the services

(modified from the DOD-HDBK-743A).

3
 SERVICE Year Data Sample Avg WT Data Sample Avg HT
(n=) (lbs) (n=) (in)
USA 1988 1,774 172.7* 1,596 69.8
1966 6,677 158.9 6,669 69.8
USMC 1966 2,006 159.8† 2,008 70.2
USAF flyers 1967 2,420 173.2 2,382 69.6
USN recruits 1966 4,091 157.4 4,095 69.9

(*) Note that the 1988 average soldier weighed 173 lbs yet in
the Army’s FM 21-18 it assumes a 160 lbs weight. It is concluded
that the pub actually reflects 1966 data but other sections of
the pub have been updated as of 1990.
(†) The MCDEC evaluation indicated 158 lbs for the USMC in
1971, but in actuality it derived its data from the same 1966
study that composed this section of the DOD-HDBK.

d. As can be seen in Table 1, there is a need to update the

weight and height data for all the services. The current study
updated the body weight and stature parameters for the Marine
Corps by collecting data from the Marsh Center Manpower database
and by cross-checking that data with a smaller sample from the
local commands of Quantico, VA and the School of Infantry, Camp
LeJeune, N.C. The results in Table 2 show the averages by gender
and rank and the results from the cross-check.

Table 2. USMC Weight and Height Data.

RANK DATA SAMPLE WT (X=) +SD HT (X=) +SD

(N=) Pounds Lbs. Inches In.
USMC (Females Only) 4,186 130.3 15.7 64.5 2.6
USMC (Males Only) 56,513 169.0 24.4 69.6 2.9
O-1,O-2 (“) 108 172.6 22.8 70.1 3.9
E-9 (“) 68 184.2 20.9 70.1 2.9
E-8 (“) 174 182.5 19.8 69.7 2.7
E-7 (“) 385 182.0 20.5 69.7 2.7
E-6 (“) 1,200 172.0 23.7 69.9 2.8
E-5 (“) 3,371 167.1 22.9 69.7 2.7
E-4 (“) 7,567 167.2 23.3 69.6 2.8
E-3 (“) 26,632 169.2 24.4 69.2 3.0
E-2 (“) 12,185 169.3 25.0 69.6 2.8
E-1 (“) 4,823 169.1 25.6 69.7 3.0

OTHER SAMPLE (N=) WT (X=) +SD HT (X=) +SD

OCS 162 173.4 19.5 68.7 2.8
TBS (predominantly O-1 & O-2) 562 175.1 21.3 69.9 3.2

4
H&S BN(predominantly >E-5 & >O-3) 1,555 175.2 23.0 69.8 2.7
SOI (MOS 03XX, E-1 & E-2) 223 168.2 19.4 69.5 2.1

e. With an objective of defining optimum loads for the USMC

in the various scenarios, the current study evaluated the current
load scenario definitions for the USMC. USMC definitions of
assault load, approach march load, and existence load are defined
in the Improved Load Bearing Equipment (ILBE) ORD:

(1) Assault Load - The assault load is the load needed

during the actual conduct of the assault. It will include
minimal equipment beyond water and ammunition. From the human
factors perspective, the maximum assault load weight will be that
weight at which an average infantry Marine will be able to
conduct combat operations indefinitely with minimal degradation
in combat effectiveness.

(2) Approach March Load - The approach march load is

defined as that load necessary for the prosecution of combat
operations for extended periods with access to daily re-supply.
The approach march load is intended to provide the individual
infantry Marine with the necessities of existence for an extended
period of combat. From the perspective of human factors, the
maximum weight of the approach march load will be such that the
average infantry Marine will able to conduct a 20-mile hike
during a time frame of eight hours with the reasonable
expectation of maintaining 90% combat effectiveness.

(3) Existence Load - The existence load is defined as

that load taken from the point of origin into the assembly area.
The existence load, for planning purposes, will be intended to
support the individual from their pack when immediate re-supply
is impossible. From the perspective of human factors, the maximum
weight of the existence load will be such that the average
infantry Marine will be able to conduct limited movement within
the confines of Naval shipping, embark and debark aircraft or
amphibious craft, and limited marching from the landing zone into
a secured area.

f. To obtain the correct load weights to be carried in the

load scenarios mentioned in 4.e., the current study searched for
the optimum percentage of body weight recommended for the various
load scenarios. All the literature (pubs, standards, and
scientific research) indicates 30% and 45% of body weight as
optimums in the assault and approach march load scenarios. There
was no defined % for existence load in the literature:

5
Table 3. Optimum load carriage percentages versus load scenarios.

REFERENCE (Ref #) ASSAULT LOAD APPROACH MARCH LOAD

MIL-STD-1472F (4) 30% 45%
DOD-HDBK-743A (8) 30% 45%
MIL-HDBK-759C (7) 30% 45%
FM 21-18 (9) 30% 45%
FM 7-10 (3) 30% 45%
Science (15-27) 30% 45%

5. Discussion and Conclusions. The object of the current study

was to: update USMC anthropometrical measurements for weight and
height and derive a 50%-ile (mean) weight and height from the
measurements, review the current load scenario definitions for
relevancy, determine the optimum weight the average Marine should
carry for the various load scenarios, and recommend a load weight
and balance for future lift assets. These objectives were
accomplished by data collection, review of standards, discussions
with military scientists, and data calculation. The conclusions
drawn from the results of the study reflect:

a. The average weight of a Marine is 169.0 pounds (male

only), and 130.3 pounds (female only).

b. The average height of a Marine is 69.6 inches (male

only), and 64.5 inches (female only).

c. Careful review of the literature and contact with

military scientists for determining the optimum percentage of
body weight the infantryman should carry in the various load
scenarios have resulted in the conclusion of 30% and 45% of body
weight for the Assault Load and the Approach March Load.

d. The Marine Corps definition of Assault Load is current

and accurately reflects the load scenario.

e. The Marine Corps definition of Approach March Load is

current and accurately reflects the load scenario.

f. The US Army FM 21-18 (Foot Marches) doctrinal publication

indicates an Emergency Approach March Load scenario for mission
coverage over a 72-hour period where air/ground transport is not
available. There is no Marine Corps definition for the Emergency
Approach March Load. This is a potential deficiency. It is
suggested that the Marine Corps consider adopting a modified
version of the Army concept. The following definition for a

6
Sustained March Load is offered as an intermediate between
Approach March Load and Existence Load:

(1) Sustained March Load - that load which may be

necessary to accomplish the mission, including items necessary to
sustain or protect over a period of approximately 72 hrs when air
and ground transport are not available. Larger packs must be
carried and contact with the enemy should not be expected as the
heavier packs could negatively affect combat effectiveness. From
the human factors perspective, well-conditioned Marines can
easily carry the Sustained March Load.

g. Assuming the addition of a Sustained March Load

definition, it is suggested the Marine Corps modify the current
definition of Existence Load to the following (modification is
italicized and bolded):

(1) Existence Load - defined as that load taken from the

point of origin into the assembly area. The existence load, for
planning purposes, will be intended to support the individual
from their pack when immediate re-supply is impossible. Due to
the heavier loads carried, enemy contact should be avoided. From
the perspective of human factors, the maximum weight of the
existence load will be such that the average infantry Marine will
be able to conduct limited movement within the confines of Naval
shipping, embark and debark aircraft or amphibious craft, and
limited marching from the landing zone into a secured area.

h. Careful review of the literature and contact with

military scientists gave no indication that an optimum percentage
of body weight had been defined for a Sustained March Load or an
Existence Load. This is a deficiency. In lieu of concrete
experimentation, it is suggested that the Marine Corps consider
60% and 75% as the optimum percentage of body weight for carriage
in the Sustained March Load and Existence Load (respectively).
These numbers are based on data extrapolation from Army load
carriage experiments and derivative conclusions from the Army
doctrinal publications.

i. Given the conclusions from 5a. – 5h. that the average

Marine weighs 169 pounds and the optimum percentage of body
weight for the loading scenarios are 35, 45, 60, and 75%, the
following table is recommended for approval for combat loading in
the in the defined loading scenarios:

Table 4. Optimum load weights for the load scenarios

7
Average Marine Assault Approach Sustained Existence
Body Weight (Male) (30%) March (45%) March (60%) (75%)
169 pounds 50.7 lbs 76.1 lbs 101.4 lbs 126.8 lbs

j. Using the figures from the table above, the following is

suggested as the representative load list in the defined
scenarios as adopted and modified from the FEB 2003 ILBE ORD
(numbers are derived from actual weight of gear projected to be
carried by the Marine in those scenarios and are not necessarily
prescriptive):

Static Weight* Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight

Uniform, Utility, Camouflage 02.970 1 2.970
Uniform, Utility, Belt, 00.300 1 0.300
Khaki, Web
T-shirt, Green 00.180 1 0.180
Under Shorts, Boxer 00.250 1 0.250
Boots, Combat with Laces 04.100 1 4.100
Socks, Combat with Liners (2) 00.160 1 0.160
Watch, Wrist 00.100 1 0.100
Card, Identification 00.028 1 0.028
Dog Tags 00.100 1 0.100
Uniform, Utility, Cap 00.220 1 0.220
Total Static WT (LBS.) 8.408

* Considered as part of the tear weight and not included in the

weight of combat load.

Assault Load
Clothing Worn & Packed Weight (Lbs) Quantity Total Weight

8
Helmet, Personnel Armor System, 03.600 1 3.600
w/ Cover and Band
Gloves, Black Leather 00.330 1 0.330
Glove Inserts (Wx specific) 00.150 1 0.150
Total 4.080
Load-Carrying Equipment Weight (Lbs) Quantity Total Weight
Fighting Load Carrier (FLC) 02.000 1 2.000
Interceptor Body Armor (Outer 08.400 1 8.400
Tactical Vest)
3 Double Magazine Pockets, 2 01.900 1 1.900
Grenade Pockets, 1
Utility/Canteen Pouch
Patrol Pack 02.425 1 2.425
Total 14.725
Weapons, Ammunition, and Weight (Lbs) Quantity Total Weight
Optics
Service Rifle, M16A2 07.900 1 7.900
Sling, M16A2 00.420 1 0.420
Ammo Magazines, M16 (7) (.027 01.050 7 7.350
lbs/rd; .24 lbs/mag)
Bayonet, M7 with Scabbard 01.300 1 1.300
Grenade, Hand, Fragmentation, 02.000 1 2.000
M67 (2)
Total 18.970
Sustainment and Other Weight (Lbs) Quantity Total Weight
Equipment
Paint, Face, Camouflage Stick 00.140 1 0.140
Flashlight with Red/Blue Lens 0.500 1 0.500
and Extra Bulb
Goggles, Sun, Wind, and Dust 00.150 1 0.150
Ear Plugs with Case 00.100 1 0.100
1st Aid Kit 01.000 1 1.000
Total 1.890
Chow and Water Weight (Lbs) Quantity Total Weight
100 Oz Hydration System 6.906 1 6.906
(Filled)
MRE 01.300 1 1.300
Total 8.206
Total Assault Load WT (LBS.) 47.871
Obj. WT (Combat Load Report) 50.70
Approach March Load
Clothing Worn & Packed Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Extra Socks, Combat 00.160 2 0.320

9
Poncho 01.600 1 1.600
Poncho Liner 01.600 1 1.600
Total 3.520
Load-Carrying Equipment Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Main Pack and Frame to include 8.075 1 8.075
shoulder suspension system &
hip belt
Total 8.075
Sustainment and Other Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Equipment
Entrenching Tool w/case 02.500 1 2.500
Tooth Brush with Tooth Paste 00.300 1 0.300
Chap Stick 00.010 1 0.010
Total 2.810
Chow and Water Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Canteen, 1 Quart (Filled) w/ 02.475 2 4.950
MOLLE Compatible
MRE 01.300 3 3.900
Total 8.850
Approach March Load 23.225
+ Assault Load 47.871
Total Approach March Load WT (LBS.) 71.126
Objective WT (Combat Load Report) 76.126

Sustained March Load

Load Carrying Equipment Weight Quantity Total Weight
(Lbs.)
SAPI Plates (Front and Back)* 08.000 1 8.000

10
 Total 8.00
Sustainment and Other Weight Quantity Total Weight
Equipment (Lbs.)
Mask, M40 w/Hood, Carrier & 04.190 1 4.190
Water Proof Bag, Canister Filter
C2A1
Total 4.190
Weapons, Ammunition, and Weight Quantity Total Weight
Optics (Lbs.)
Infantry Weapon Night Targeting 00.800 1 0.800
Device, AN/PAQ-4C w/ Batteries *
Night Vision Monocle, AN/PVS-14 01.000 1 1.000
w/Batteries *
Total 1.800
Chow and Water Weight Quantity Total Weight
(Lbs.)
Canteen, 1 Quart (Filled) w/ 02.475 2 4.950
MOLLE Compatible
MRE 01.300 3 3.900
Total 8.850
Emergency Approach March Load 22.84
Items
+Assault Load 47.871
+Approach March load 23.225
Total Sustained March Load WT 93.936
Objective WT(Combat Load Report) 101.400

* These items could be listed in any of the aforementioned load

scenarios as the mission dictates.

Existence Load
Clothing Worn & Packed Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
100 Weight Fleece Jacket 00.661 1 0.661
300 Weight Fleece Jacket 01.322 1 1.322

11
Gortex Top 02.200 1 2.200
Gortex Bottoms 02.200 1 2.200
Polypropylene Top 00.440 1 0.440
Polypropylene Bottom 00.462 1 0.462
Cold Weather Gloves & Mittens 01.325 1 1.325
Total 8.610
Sustainment and Other Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Equipment
Watch, Cap 00.550 1 0.550
Insect Repellant 00.750 1 0.750
Sewing Kit 00.100 1 0.100
Mat, Isopor 01.500 1 1.500
Bivy Sack 02.200 1 2.200
Modular Sleeping Bag 04.500 1 4.500
Two Man Tent 08.500 1 8.500
Shaving Gear, Towel, Facecloth 02.000 1 2.000
J-List Suit (MOPP Suit) 10.000 1 10.000
Complete with boots and gloves
Batteries, AA (4) 00.375 2 0.750
Total 30.850
Chow and Water Weight (Lbs.) Quantity Total Weight
Canteen, 2 Quart (Filled) 04.600 1 4.600
w/MOLLE Compatible
Total 4.600
EXISTENCE LOAD ITEMS weight 44.060
+Assault Load 47.871
+Approach March Load 23.225
+Sustained March Load 22.840
Total Existence Load WT 137.996
Objective WT (Combat Load Report) 126.800

6. Recommendations. Based on the conclusions and calculations

of this study, it is recommended:

a. Marine Corps accept the body weight and height of the

average Marine as 169 pounds and 70” (respectively) and use these
figures in current matrices for combat development.

12
 b. Marine Corps adopt the Sustained March Load and the
modified Existence Load definitions.

c. Marine Corps adopt the body weight percentage of 30%,

45%, 60%, and 75% of body weight as the percentage of load to be
carried by the average sized Marine in the Assault, Approach
March Load, Sustained March Load and Existence Load scenarios.

d. Based on recommendations from 6.a. and 6.c., Marine Corps

adopt the calculated conclusions for loading Marines in the
Assault, Approach March, Sustained March, and Existence load
scenarios as 51, 76, 101, and 127 pounds (respectively).

e. Based on the average Marine weight of 169 pounds and an

Existence Load weight of 129 pounds, Marine Corps adopt a combat
load volumetric of 322 pounds (169 + 24 = 193 + 129 = 322) as a
weight and balance load per Marine boarding a lift asset.

f. Update the weight and height data every five years.

g. Not all commands populate the Height/Weight portions of

the PFT records and we lost data points. Recommend all commands
fill-in this section of the PFT in order to allow future updates
to the system regarding height and weight.

7. Future work.

a. Experiment with the optimum body weight percentages for

the Sustained March Load and the Existence Load. The Naval Health
Research Center (NHRC), San Diego, CA has a Human Performance
section in their Physiology Department that can perform this
study. Camp Pendleton could conceivably be the test bed.

b. Develop a Marine Corps doctrinal publication in which a

Combat Load chapter is included; concurrently, develop a pocket
field guide on methods for packing the load bearing equipment
according to the various load scenarios.

c. Validate report results in an operational setting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Military Publications, Standards, Reports, Handbooks:

1. Army Chief of Staff (2002) “Combined Arms Operations in Urban

Terrain” Field Manual (FM) 3-06.11. HQ, Department of the Army,
Washington, D.C. 28 FEB 2002.

13
 2. Ehrlich, R.J. (2001) “Chapter 11: Soldier’s Load and Combat
Readiness” Joint Readiness Training Center Newsletter, No. 01-15
(JUL 01), Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), US Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Fort Leaven worth, KS
66027-1350; pp 71-76. downloaded from : http://call.army.mil 20
SEP 2003.

3. Army Chief of Staff (2000) “The Infantry Rifle Company.”

Field Manual (FM) 7-10 . HQ, Department of the Army, Washington,
D.C., 31 OCT 2000.

4. Department of Defense (1999) “Design Criteria Standard: Human

Engineering.” Military Standard 1472F (MIL-STD-1472F). 23 AUG
1999.

5. Ministry of Defence (1997) “Human Factors for Designers of

Equipment Part 3: Body Strength and Stamina.” Defence Standard
(DEF-STAN) 00-25 (Part 3)/Issue 2. Ministry of Defence,
Directorate of Standardization, Glasgow, G2 8EX; 24 Jan 1997.

6. Ministry of Defence (1997) “Human Factors for Designers of

Equipment Part 2:Body Size.” DEF-STAN-00-25 (Part 2)/Issue 2.
Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Standardization, Glasgow, G2
8EX; 14 FEB 1997.

7. Department of Defense (1995) “Handbook for Human Engineering

Design Guidelines.” Military Handbook 759C (MIL-HDBK-759C).
31 JUL 1995.

8. Department of Defense (1991) “Military Handbook Anthropometry

of U.S. Military Personnel (Metric).” Department of Defense
Handbook 743A (DOD-HDBK-743A). 13 FEB 1991.

9. Army Chief of Staff (1990) “Foot Marches.” Field Manual (FM)

21-18. HQ, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 01 JUN 1990.

10. Army Chief of Staff (19XX) “The Infantry Battalion.” Field

Manual (FM) 7-20. HQ, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.,
DD MMM YYYY.

11. Army Chief of Staff (1982) “Jungle Operations.” Field Manual

(FM) 90-5. HQ, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 16 AUG
1982.

14
12. US Marine Corps (1971) Evaluation of MARCES Platoon Load
Distribution Report. Marine Corps Development and Education
Command, Quantico, VA; 21 JAN 1971.

13. US Marine Corps (1970) Marine Combat Electronic System

(MARCES) Platoon Final Report: The Platoon and Its Operations
(Volume 2). HQ, Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.; 30 JAN 1970.

14. Army Chief of Staff (1967) “Principles Governing the Design

of the Individual Equipment of the Combat Soldier.” Technical
Bulletin (TB) 34-9-253. HQ, Department of the Army, Washington,
D.C.

Science Publications, Technical Reports, Press Releases, Books,

and Staff Papers:

15. Santee, W.R.; L.A. Blanchard; K.L. Speckman; J.A. Gonzalez;

R.F. Wallace (2003) “Load Carriage model Development and Testing
with Field Data.” USARIEM TECH NOTE TN03-3. Biophysics and
Biomedical Modeling Division; US Army Research Institute of
Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

16. Fronduti-Polcyn, A.; C.K. Bensel; E. A. Harman; J.P. Obusek;

C. Pandorf; P. Frykman (2002) “Effects of Weights Carried by
Soldiers: Combined Analysis of Four Studies on Maximal
Performance, Physiology, and Biomechanics.” Techincal Report:
Natick/TR-02/010. US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command;
US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

17. Whitaker, J. (2001) “New Rucksack Helps Soldiers Tailor

Load.” SBCOM-Natick Press Release No:01-50. US Army Soldier
Systems Center-Natick; US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical
Command, Natick MA; 19 SEP 2001.

18. Whitaker, J. (2001) “Physiological Monitors Key to Peak

Performance.” SBCOM-Natick Press Release No: 01-58. US Army
Soldier Systems Center-Natick; US Army Soldier and Biological
Chemical Command, Natick MA; 08 NOV 2001.

19. Butler, P.J.; C.J. Patterson (2000) “ The Effects fo

Environment, Terrain, and Load on Infantry Soldier Performance.”
ARL-MR-478. Weapons and Materials Research Directorate; Army
Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

20. Harman, E.; P. Frykman; C. Pandorf; W. Tharion; R. Mello; J.

Obusek; J. Kirk (1999) “Physiological, Biomedical, and Mechanical

15
Performance Comparisons of Soldiers Carrying Loads using US
Marine Corps Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE)
and US Army Modular Load System (MLS) Prototypes.” Tech Report
T99-4. US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; US Army
Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

21. Knapik, J.; K. Reynolds (1997) “Load Carriage in Militray

Operations: A Review of Historical, Physiological, Biomechanical,
and Medical Aspects.” Tech Report:19971014-055. Army Research
Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; US Army Research
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

22. Townsend, S.J. (1994) “The Factors of Soldier’s Load.”

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) AD-A284-389. Defense
Technical Information Center, FT Belvoir, VA.

23. Knapik, J; R. Johnson; P. Ang; H. Meiselman; C.K. Bensel; W.

Johnson; B. Flynn; W. Hanlon (1993) “Road March Performance of
Special Operations Soldiers Carrying Various Loads and Load
Distributions.” Tech Report No. T 14-93. US Army Medical Research
and Materiel Command; US Army Research Institute of Environmental
Medicine, Natick, MA.

24. Ezell, W.L. (1992) “Battlefield Mobility and the Soldier’s

Load.” Command and Staff Paper. Marine Corps University,
Quantico, VA.

25. Buckalew, L.W. (1990) “Soldier Performance as a Funciton of

Stress and Load: A Review.” ARI Research Report 1545. Field Unit,
FT. Hood, TX; US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.

26. Knapik, J (1989) “Loads Carried by Soldiers: Historical,

Physiological, biomechanical, and Medical Aspects.” Tech Report
T19-89. US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; US Army
Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

27. Anonymous (1985) “Infantryman’s Combat Load” Command and

Staff Paper. Marine Corps University, Quantico, VA.

28. Marshall, S.L.A. (1950) Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a

Nation. The Marine Corps Association, Quantico, VA (Jan 1980).

Periodicals:

16
29. Regalado, A. (2003) “Gearing Up: Girding the Grunt for War.”
Wall Street Journal. 07 FEB 2003, PG. B.1.

30. Rorke, T. (2003) “Army Looks to Lighten Soldier’s Combat

Load.” Belvior Eagle. May 2003.

31. Zoroya, G. (2003) “101st Ready for Enemy Territory; Army

Airborne Assault Unit Carries Variety of Weapons and Heavy
Burden.” USA TODAY. 19 MAR 2003, pg. A.06.

32. Brill Jr., A.P. (2002) “The Last Ounce of Combat Readiness.”
Navy League of the United States. Downloaded from URL:
http://www.navyleague.org

33. “What Joe Carries.” 13 JUL 2001. Downloaded from URL:

http://call.army.mil/products/sop/adams/chapter16.htm

34. Kennedy, H. (2001) “Army Striving to Lighten Load for Combat

Soldiers.” National Defense. JUL 2001, pg. 30.

35. Goodman Jr., G.W. (1999) “ Revolutionary Soldier: US Army’s

Land Warrior Program Turns the Corner and Shows Far-Reaching
Potential.” Armed Forces Journal International. OCT 1999, pg. 56.

36. Solgere, A. (1999) “A Soldier’s Load…Revisited.” Marine Corps

Gazette. Vol. 83 No. 10 (OCT 1999).

37. Luddy, J. (1996) “A Lighter Burden to Bear: Program

Priorities Focus on the Individual Marine.” Marines Online. AUG
1996.

38. Porter, S.C. (1992) “The Soldier’s Load.” Infantry. Vol 82 #3

(May-Jun) 1992.

39. Inghram, D.C. (1987) “Lightening the Combat Load.” Marine

Corps Gazette. 1987, Vol. 71 (3).

17