Combat Carry: The Hippy Configuration.

A friend of mine commented that Canadian troops were wedded to the idea of carrying at least six to seven magazines. Recently, I was reminded that many water-bottle pouches can hold five or six 30-round magazines. I also came across a comment pointing out that you do not want your magazine pouches where most troops actually carry them, at the front on the waist. Lousy to crawl with them at the front, worse to fall on. Not so comfortable if you have to sit down, and many armies now have more drivers than infantry. That is not necessarily a bad thing! A small force, well-supported, can achieve more than a large, poorly supported one. This is how many guerilla, terrorist and clandestine forces operate. There are relatively few “trigger-pullers” and a much larger number of support and intelligence-gatherers. Put the right person, in the right place, at the right time with the right tools.

Load-bearing equipment (LBE) tends to be designed with the infantry in mind, but most of its users will be signalers, engineers, gunners and drivers.

Thinking further, most troops reload with their weak-side hand. (It might be different for some bullpups, but seems true for the M16, AKM and their relatives). It makes sense to have most of the ammo where the weak hand can easily reach it? Why not have a water-bottle/ utility pouch of magazines on the weak side of the belt, at the side? If you read my blog on chest-rigs you may recall the four-magazine pouches for the AK issued by some armies. Someone will object that all the magazines could get tipped out at once, so alternately, a pair of ALICE-type magazine “cases” that hold three magazines each. These would tend to sit at eight and ten “o’clock” on the belt (for right-handers), which may be more comfortable. Most rifle-magazine pouches available nowadays hold two magazines, and a pair of these will be less bulky. Additional magazines can be carried in chest or sleeve pockets or other locations.

Some experimentation will be prudent. Pouches for three mags usually sit with the spines of the magazines towards the body. Side-on may be better. Pouches might be more accessible orientated obliquely or laid horizontally. And we need to remember the soldier may need to reload while prone.

The above arrangement puts 4 to 6 lbs on one side of your belt or harness, but there is a logical way to balance this. The soldier will use his grenades in his strong hand, so on the strong-side of the belt we put a pouch or pouches holding several grenades. When throwing prone, you lay on your weak-side, so it is logical to have your primary source of grenades on the strong-side. Perhaps some frags at two o’clock, pouches for one or two cylindrical grenades such as smoke bombs at four. Actual grenade load-out will depend on combat role and mission. Alternately, a smoke grenade pouch can carry a 500ml water-bottle.

So far we have one pouch or pouches on one side of the belt, another set on the other. Our soldier is well-armed, yet front and back areas of the belt region are relatively clear, allowing our soldier to comfortably sit in a vehicle or crawl if someone is shooting at him or he doesn’t want to be seen. No bulky butt-pack or kidney-pouches at the back that hinder him (or her) carrying a rucksack, or wave at the enemy as they crawl. 

The front of the belt can be used for relatively small, low bulk items, such as a compass pouch and some shell-dressings. With a number of small pouches the front of the belt could end up looking like an old Garand ammo belt! (above) For non-infantry the front of the belt will probably end up carrying small specialist tools and items. For some personnel the grenades and magazines at the side may be replaced by larger utility pouches.

The back of the belt is clear so far. This clearly contributes to comfort when seated in a vehicle or carrying a long pack. Here I am going to revive my “camelbum” concept and suggest a second belt, mounting two pouches. One pouch (clearly marked, and marked with blood group) contains an IFAK (Immediate First Aid Kit) for the soldier. The other is the same model of pouch containing a two-litre water-bladder dimensioned to fit inside. Having their own belt allows these to be worn rather like a bumbag. They can be added when in high readiness and shunted round the front or to a more convenient position when the soldier is seated or carrying a pack.

An entrenching tool or other tools can be shoved through the belt when needed, carried on the backpack when not. As I have discussed elsewhere, carrying cases for such tools are superfluous, and have no place on the primary LBE. A small, fixed-blade utility knife of about 25cm loa. should be mounted over the weak-side pectorial muscle where it can be reached with either hand. See my books Survival Weapons and Crash Combat for more on this. If a bayonet is carried, the logical place for it is on the weak-side of the belt, possibly mounted on the side of a magazine pouch in the manner of the British 58 webbing. A larger survival knife such as a machete or kukri should probably be attached to the trouser belt, so it remains on-person should the LBE need to be discarded in an emergency. The same is true of a handgun, which will likely be carried on the opposite side of the trouser belt. Field jackets and other garments should be modified/ redesigned so that tools and weapons carried in this manner are accessible. This arrangement places the survival knife in the space between the magazine pouch(es) and the trouser belt, and the handgun behind/ between the grenade pouches.

I have described this equipment configuration as mounted on a conventional LBE belt, but the basic concept should work with other carry systems. Rather than on the waist, those weak-side magazine pouches might be mounted in the area under the arm, and this gives some possible alternate configurations. For example, three dual-magazine pouches mounted horizontally or obliquely.

One currently fashionable item I have not mentioned above is the “dump-pouch” for empty magazines. What to do you do with those empty magazines? If fitted with a cord pull-loop (as described in Survival Weapons) you can clip them onto a snap-link on your LBE or rucksack strap, although this may admittedly be a challenge while most of your attention is understandably on more pressing concerns. Back in the day you might drop them down the front of your smock or jacket, but is difficult with modern combat wear and armour. The current solution is to fumble for a belt-mounted “dump pouch”, but the LBE belt is fairly crowded already and there may be more useful things that could use that space. There is an easier, simpler, more efficient and cheaper option.

Take a sandbag and cut off the bottom foot or so. Save the rest for making textilage. Hem the new top edge of the bag. You may choose to add a drawcord here at this step, although the cord is not needed for the dump-sack role. Put a ring or loop at each top corner of the cord so you can tie or snap-link a strap or two to it. Straps should be easily adjustable for length, so should have some form of buckle. You may like to add a length of cord to each lower corner of the bag.

A sandbag is good because they are often readily available and the light tan colour is good for most environments. You can, however, make these bags out of any suitably coloured piece of cloth, including discarded or damaged combat wear and old tee-shirts. If you have access to a sewing machine, even a little cheap one, you can knock these out in minutes.

You will have to disguise the basic rectangular shape of the bag, so regardless of what you made it from, add some scraps of cloth and sandbag as textilage. Don’t forget the straps. Some bold blobs of any suitably coloured and contrasting paint you have handy can be added too.

Adjust your strap so the bag hangs from your neck, at about chest level. Use the lower cords to keep it in place if you wish. When you change magazines you can drop the empty into the open mouth of your neck bag. The bag also helps camouflage your chest area. Since this area is subject to body-shading it helps that the basic colour of the bag is light. The neck bag will fit over a “reasonably-size” chest-rig while still allowing access to magazines.

The neck bag is a handy place to quickly stow anything else you come across during an operation. Bunch of materials or possessions that might provide intelligence? Drop them down your neck bag and examine them later. When not in use a bag easily rolls up and can be kept rolled by tying one of the corner cords into a slippery hitch. A quick tug and the bag can be unrolled. Such simple bags will provide useful for lots of other purposes. They are useful for foraging or supplying extra ammunition to crew-served weapons. Add a pair of snap-on straps, or use one “Veshmeshok”-style and use as a simple rucksack.

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your appreciation. Thank you.

The Books

Hori-Hori for Survival.

One of the many things that became apparent after the American Civil War was that the infantryman needed a means to quickly construct earthworks.“Hardtack and Coffee” informs us that the quartermaster of the army had wagons of intrenching tools [sic] that were supposed to be supplied to units that needed them. In practice, there was seldom time to send for these tools, and infantrymen resorted to digging with their tin plates ormuckets. As you can see, there were attempts to modify spike bayonets for the role.

One of the solutions offered after the war was the Rice trowel bayonet, which began to see trials in the late 1860s. Available on-line is a document detailing the findings of the trails. While a few officers expressed reservations, the opinion of the enlisted men and many other officers was overwhelmingly positive. The document describes “rifle-proof” parapets being constructed in as little as nine minutes.This would be impressive, even with larger modern tools. The trowel bayonet was clearly superior to the improvised means the troops had been using before. It also had sufficient size, heft and edge that it could be used to cut saplings and branches, something beyond the current spike bayonet. Many believed the large, spear-like blade would make a better bayonet than the spike bayonet. Breech-loading rifles were coming into service, and many were of the opinion that the bayonet might be becoming obsolete. If it wasn’t quite as good a bayonet as the weapon it replaced, this was tolerable and its greater utility made up for this. The main objection to the trowel bayonet was that troops might be tempted to dig with it while it was mounted on the rifle. This was likely to bend the barrel, damage the muzzle or block the bore. Shortly after the introduction of the trowel bayonet it was replaced with a trowel knife. This probably had a better grip than the trowel bayonet, but its rounded tip gives it a less war-like appearance and possibly it was of less utility as a hand weapon. 

Bayonets continued to evolve, but along different lines. The next step was the sword-bayonet, intended to serve as bayonet or hanger. Some infantry had carried both bayonets and hangers. Napoleon’s guard around 1815 spring to mind as an example. By the 1880s most infantry had long since discarded the hanger, so effectively the sword bayonet was replacing an implement that was no longer carried. Nonetheless, many armies entered the 20th century with sword bayonets, and would be using them until the 1940s at least.

The idea of letting the infantry have their very own entrenching tools had taken root, however. Infantry entrenching tools got bigger and more sophisticated until they reached the form we know today.

As has been discussed before on this blog, some of these tools are overkill for the non-military user. It is a hygienic cathole, rather than atomic-proof foxhole, that we generally need. There are little plastic trowels, of course, but these are not much use for anything else. The trowel bayonet suggests a relatively small digging tool can be a useful survival aid. Is there a modern equivalent?

Seeking to answer this took me to discover the hori-hori. In another blog I described how I had seen machetes used as jack of all trades by gardeners in Jamaica. The hori-hori is a similar device, but more compact. Not surprisingly, these are Japanese. The ninja put a similar digging tool, the kunai, to various uses. The hori-hori were originally used for gathering wild foods, so technically are already survival tools. A variety of models of hori-hori are available, but the one I have has a 7.5 inch blade, so more compact than the 10 by 4inch blade of the original trowel bayonets. One edge is serrated, the other can be used to chop or cut, or will be once I sharpen it. (The packaging says it comes “razor sharp”, which apparently means “unsharpened”.) The blade is a broad spearpoint, with one side slightly concave, as suits its digging role. Mine came with a nice condura sheath. Unlike many survival knives, this is a tool the makers recommend that you can pry with. Price is a bit more than a normal trowel, but this can be offset against the fact that many gardeners think they do not need many tools other than their hori-hori. On the other hand, compared to many survival knives, the price is very reasonable.

The hori-hori seems a pretty useful tool to have along on a trip or stored in an emergency kit. A useful backup or replacement for a survival knife.

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your appreciation. Thank you.

The Books

LBE, M-1956.

My friend Ralph Zumbro had often referenced “the Pentomic division”, so recently I read “The Pentomic Era” by A. C. Bacevich. This provides an interesting insight into the politics and mindset that was behind this phase of Army history. What the book does not provide is much detail on the actual organization of the Pentomic divisions. Thus, a few nights ago I could be found wading through an on-line copy of “Infantry”, 1957-1958.

One thing I came across was an article (p.34, April-June 1958) on the new “universal, individual load-carrying system.”. Although the designation is not used, this is the M-1956 system that served in Vietnam and was replaced by what was essentially a nylon version. What caught my eye was the author divided the soldier’s load into three groupings: Battle load, existence load and protection and comfort load. “Combat load” was the battle and existence loads, “Full field load” was all three. Before entering “close combat” the soldier could jettison the existence load “except bayonet or fighting knife, first-aid pouch and other essential items”.

What were these loads?

The battle load was defined as the individual’s weapon and ammunition and weighed 25lb. This was still the era of the M1 Garand, although the M14 was just coming into service.

The existence load included emergency rations, medical items, canteen and canteen cup, toilet articles, one pair of socks, poncho and bayonet or fighting knife, and weighed 20lbs.

The comfort load included a sleeping bag, extra clothing and “personal gear” and weighed 10lbs.

The existence load was carried in the combat pack. Presumably the protection and comfort items could be stored in the sleeping bag carrier. An illustration in the article declares that clothing and other personal items can be carried inside the sleeping bag roll. Oddly, it shows a shaving kit, which you would think was a toiletry. Thus either load could be removed by just releasing a few clips. Full field load was therefore 55lbs. Compare this to the 1877 load in a previous article.

The idea of dividing and packaging the gear as several categories is interesting, although some of the details can be challenged. Why is the bayonet/ knife and first-aid pouch not part of the battle load? These would probably be carried on the webbing anyway, so would not be jettisoned with the combat pack/ existence load. One of the canteens on the webbing and part of the battle load makes sense, but the canteen cup is less vital and should be a pack item. 

Essentially this approach has the soldier carrying two packs, the contents of each having different functions and different priorities. You can create a similar system by having a large pack and one or more smaller packs that clips onto or fits in the larger. It is a set of ideas to play around with.

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your appreciation. Thank you.

The Books

Kephart: Dressing for Cold Weather

Following the description on Kephart’s Autumn Outfit, I will add his recommendations for dressing for cold weather:

Cold Weather Clothing.— The main fault of most cold weather rigs is that, paradoxically, they -re too hot. You go out into '“twenty-some-odd” below zero, all muffled up in thick underwear, overshirt, heavy trousers, and a 32-ounce (to the yard) Mackinaw coat. Very nice, until you get your stride. In half an hour the sweat will be streaming from you enough to turn a mill. By and by you may have to stand still for quite a while. Then the moisture begins to freeze, and a buffalo robe wouldn’t keep you warm. Conditions vary ; but for average winter work put on two suits of medium weight all-wool underwear, instead of one heavy one, moleskin trousers (heavy Mackinaws chafe), wool overshirt, Mackinaw shirt worn with tail outside, so it can easily be removed and worn behind you when not needed, the rubber “overs” and socks mentioned above, a Mackinaw cap with visor and ear flaps, large, old kid gloves, and thick, woolen mittens held by a cord around the neck. In buying Mackinaws get none but the best quality. Cheap Mackinaw is shoddy, or part cotton, and soaks up moisture like a sponge. A good grade sheds rain so long as the nap is not worn off; then it can be waterproofed by the lanolin process. It is noiseless, and stands rough usage. The natural gray color is best, except where the law requires you to wear red for protection against gun-bearing fools. (About this, saith our friend Crossman: “Yes, some fellow might take you for a deer if you wore an inconspicuous color in the woods, but what would you? He’d take you for a zebra if you wore green and yellow, or shoot you for a forest fire it you wore flaming crimson.”)

In the previous section referenced to above Kephart writes:

Rubber Footwear.— I never wear waders for summer trout fishing, but early spring fishing is a different matter. Wading stockings require special hobnailed shoes to go over them. I prefer a pair of light hip boots and separate wading sandals studded with nails. This combination costs less than the other, is more durable, and the boots by themselves are serviceable for general wet weather wear, marsh shooting, and the like. Light rubber boots of first-class quality will last as long as the common heavy ones, and have the advantage that the legs can be turned inside out clear to the ankle for drying. They need not weigh over 3 or 3½ pounds to the pair, and the sandals a pound more — together no more than the high-topped leather boots that I have been objurgating. Have them large enough for both socks and oversocks, then your feet are not likely to get “scalded”. Carry a couple of “eezy-quick” menders, and have a rubber repair kit among your possibles in camp.

For hunting big game In wet snow and slush the best footwear is a pair of rubber shoes with ten-inch leather uppers, weighing a bit over two pounds. They should have heels, if you go into a hilly country, and rough corrugated soles. Dress the feet with soft woolen socks, and over these draw a pair of long, thick “German socks” that strap at the top. The latter are warmer than the loose felt boots worn by lumbermen, lighter, more flexible, fit better, and are easier to dry out. The rubbers should fit properly over the heavy socks, neither too tight nor too loose, but especially not too tight or you risk frostbite! Thus equipped, a still-hunter is “shod with silence.” For cold weather the vital necessity is suppleness of the foot, and here you have it.

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your appreciation. Thank you.

The Books