PAYING FOR WEIGHT IN BLOOD: An Analysis of Weight and Protection Level of a Combat Load During Tactical Operations Capt Courtney Thompson Advisor: Dr. Tom Lucas Second Reader: Dr. Kyle Lin The Problem HUMAN-SUBJECT RESEARCH Performance decrement: 0.36 – 0.68% / lb. THESIS OBJECTIVE Support commanders’ understanding of how external load can both enhance and diminish the effectiveness and survivability of the warfighter THESIS QUESTIONS ▪ What is the effect of increasing external load on casualties and mission success? ▪ Is there a critical point in weight which should not be exceeded? 2 Bottom Line Weight + = = Casualties One Additional Casualty 15 lbs. 43 lbs. CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ▪ Speed matters more against peer ▪ Fighting load weight ≤ 50 lbs. adversaries ▪ Assault load weight ≤ 75 lbs. ▪ Goal: Enable Marines to be twice as ▪ Holistic approach to weight reduction hard to hit as stationary targets (results in 60% reduction in expected casualties) 3 Thesis Scenario SITUATION ▪ Fireteam-sized (4) element of insurgents with AK-47 assault rifles ▪ Expect a surprise attack MISSION 13-Marine rifle squad conducts a dismounted patrol in vicinity of the town in order to control the urban region and deny the enemy the ability to harm the local populace. EXECUTION ▪ Insert via convoy and dismount approx. 100 meters outside the town ▪ Conduct patrols around the town’s perimeter, then through the city in a squad wedge formation 3 Feet 3 Rising from Prone Duration Squad BMet/ Rank Running Speed Marksmanship Weapon Accuracy . . P(lncapaCItatIon) Protection Level Distance to Target Assumptions Assumption Reasoning Red agents have no body armor Estimation of enemy equipment Probability of a Red agent hitting a Blue agent is for a stationary target Blue agents run directly towards Red with no lateral movement Probability of a Blue agent hitting a Red agent partially obscured behind cover = Probability of hitting an agent in the prone firing position Estimation of the amount of exposed body area of an enemy fighter firing from behind a wall or through a window Probability of a Red agent hitting a Blue agent rising from prone = Probability of hitting an agent in the kneeling firing position Estimation of presented target area Results: T&R Standard Loads Fighting Load [lbs]: II = 43, III = 62, IV = 65 Level II III IV Body Armor Level II III IV Q1 8 7 8 Assault Load [lbs]: II = 58, III = 77, IV = 80 Body Armor Description Protection Soft Armor Vest 9 mm II + SAPIs 7.62 mm II + ESAPIs 0.30 cal. AP Blue Casualties Assault Load Fighting Load Median Q3 Q1 Median Q3 10 13 7 9 13 10 13 7 8.5 13 10 13 7 9 13 ▪ ↓ Weight = ↓ Casualties ▪ Average difference of one casualty between fighting and assault loads ▪ Balance of weight and protection is best regardless of load type 7 Results: External Load & P(H) ▪ Constant P(H) Multiplier: ↓ External Load = ↓ Casualties ▪ External load weight matters more against better shooters 8 Conclusion Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter. – Winston Churchill CONCLUSIONS ▪ 43 lbs. + 15 lbs. = 1 additional casualty ▪ Optimal load = lightest load with greatest level of protection ▪ Heavier weight = increase in casualties ▪ Against peer adversaries speed matters more ▪ Enabling Marines to be twice as hard to hit as stationary targets reduces 13-Marine squad casualties from 8.9 to 3.5 (60% reduction in casualties) RECOMMENDATIONS ▪ Fighting load weight ≤ 50 lbs. ▪ Assault load weight ≤ 75 lbs. ▪ Holistic approach to weight reduction 9 Stakeholders Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) ▪ Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) ▪ Plans, Policies, and Operations (PP&O) MARCORSYSCOM ▪ Ground Combat Element Systems ▪ Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad (MERS) US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) ▪ Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team (CFT) ▪ Soldier and Squad Tradespace Analysis Framework (SSTAF) US Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center ▪ Advanced Soldier and Small-unit Equipment Team (ASSET) US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence ▪ Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate (CDID) ▪ Tactical Athlete Performance Center (TAP-C) Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (MCWL) Questions? “[this thesis] will add value to how we approach equipping decisions and continues to emphasize that all efforts to reduce weight create a powerful return on investment.” – LtCol Lively (Infantry Advocate, PP&O) Backup Slides 12 Enemy (Red) Agent Inputs External Load and P(H) Experiments: P(I) = Red P(H) Multiplier x P(H) x P(I H) 13 Assumptions & Limitations Assumption Reasoning Blue agents never suppressed Significant exposure Red agents suppressed for 6 sec. when “Shot At” state is triggered Estimation of how much time an enemy fighter would hide completely behind cover before re-engaging Movement and visibility unaffected by terrain Flat, desert terrain with clear visibility MODEL LIMITATIONS ▪ MANA state duration Precision restricted to the nearest whole second (even with a time step of 1/10 sec) ▪ Reduces accuracy of time a Blue agent takes rising from prone ▪ Agent state speed restricted to a single value ▪ Reduces accuracy of an agent’s acceleration and deceleration during the 6meter bound after getting up from the prone position (used average speed over the course of the entire rush distance) Blue Combat Loads COMBAT LOAD WEIGHT RANGES Fighting Load: [43, 65] Assault Load: [49, 80] Actual Load: [90, 159] 15 Blue Body Armor Levels National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Body Armor Levels ▪ NIJ Level II = Soft Armor Only ▪ NIJ Level III = Soft Armor + (4) SAPI Plates ▪ NIJ Level IV = Soft Armor + (4) ESAPI Plates Weight 9 lbs. 28 lbs. 31 lbs. 16 Blue P(Incapacitation) MANA P(H) = P(Incapacitation) = P(I)* Formula: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ P(H) Factors Weapon Munition Target area Distance to target Marksmanship factor P(I H) Factors ▪ Body armor coverage area ▪ Body armor level ▪ Distance to target * Wounded or KIA 17 Blue Agent States STATE Running Engaging Red Agents Rising from Prone POSTURE Running Prone "Kneeling" WEAPON Disabled Enabled Disabled DURATION Speed Dependent 15 sec. Speed Dependent 18 Blue Agent States RUNNING ▪ AUS study found average performance reduction of 0.36% (fast group) to 0.64% (slow group) per pound of external load (1st to 16th rush) ▪ USMC infantry CFT scores used to designate speed groupings Grade E1/2 E3 E4 E5 CFT N Average 3110 265.1 16493 276 12582 286.8 8909 288.7 Performance Decrement [%/lbs] 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 CFT 285+: Fast group (0.36% / lbs.) CFT 250 - 285: Average (0.5% / lbs.) CFT 250-: Slow group (0.64% / lbs.) NIJ Level Weight [lbs] % Decrease % Decrease NIJ Level Weight [lbs] % Decrease % Decrease FIGHTING LOAD II III 43 62 21.5 30.9 15.6 22.5 ASSAULT LOAD II III 58 77 28.9 38.4 21 27.9 IV 65 32.5 23.6 IV 80 39.9 29 ▪ Calculated speed for each rush until Reach Final Waypoint state; determined by: ▪ Agent speed group (fast or average) ▪ External load weight ▪ Average speed of all rushes = Default state speed 19 Blue Agent States ENGAGING RED AGENTS ▪ State duration = 15 sec. (time for buddy to rush, get set, and begin suppression) ▪ Reach Final Waypoint state triggered = End of simulation RISING FROM PRONE External Load [lbs.] Average Time to Feet [sec.] 10.4 1.04 42.1 1.28 47.5 1.41 55.1 1.25 57.3 1.44 64.4 1.53 ▪ Logistic regression (AUS study data) ▪ Estimate time from prone to feet based on external weight y = 0.9748e0.0065x R2 = 0.8199 20 Model USMC Agents Rifleman A/Auto Rifleman Fireteam Leader Squad Leader Automatic Rifleman Enemy Agents 21 DOE Experiment 1: Standard Load Analysis ▪ Load Type (2-level): Fighting, Assault ▪ Body Armor Level (3-level): II, III, IV Experiment 1.1: P(H) Multiplier [0.1, 1.0] Experiment 3: Sensitivity Analysis ▪ Speed [m/s]: [0.5, 2.5] ▪ Prone Time [sec]: [5, 30] ▪ P(H) Multiplier: [0.1, 1.0] Experiment 2: External Load & P(H) Analysis ▪ External Load [lbs] (25-level): [40, 160] by 5 ▪ P(H) Multiplier (19-level): [0.1, 1.0] by 0.05 ▪ Body Armor Level = III (constant) 22 Results: T&R Standard Loads Blue Casualties Body Armor Level II III IV 25th Q 8 7 8 Assault Median 10 10 10 75th Q 13 13 13 25th Q 7 7 7 Fighting Median 9 8.5 9 75th Q 13 13 13 ▪ ↓ Weight = ↓ Casualties ▪ Average difference of one casualty between fighting and assault loads Assault Load Fighting Load Body Armor Level P(Success) SE P(Success) SE II 0.615 0.0109 0.740 0.0098 III 0.632 0.0108 0.747 0.0097 IV 0.599 0.0110 0.695 0.0103 ▪ Balance of weight and protection is best 𝑆𝐸 = 𝑝(1 − 𝑝) 𝑛 23 i: re, Results: Standard Loads 10 Or Qtt. 0? 0 Mean :0 7.6 Casualties Difference . . . 4.6 Casualties Mean . 9 3 Casualties 0 Red PIZH) Multiplier-80.6 Red Ple) All Rows Number All Rows Load Type RSquare RMSE of Spl'rts AlCc Count 114 Difference . A 0.34? 1.3343132 114 1 395.564 Mean 5.1852368 4.59023 A fight Dev 2.6639586 '9 '9 Red Multiplier<0.6 Red Multiplier> 0.6 Count 60 Count 54 IMean 3.010918? IMean 3.6811481 Dev 1.3593838 Dev 1.332136? 24 Results: External Load & P(H) External Load Analysis ▪ ↑ External Load = ↑ Exposure Time = ↑ P(H) Effect ▪ ↓ External Load = ↓ Casualties (constant P(H) Multiplier) P(H) Analysis 𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒 < 0.55𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 → 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 > 1.8𝑃𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 : Red P(H) Multiplier = 1 ▪ If P(H) moving target is at least twice as hard as P(H) stationary target, then average USMC casualties drops by ~ 5 25 Results: Sensitivity Analysis ▪ Running speed and Red P(H) Multiplier matter most ▪ Prone time not significant 26 Future Research MANA Model ▪ Vary: (1) squad travel distance, (2) number of enemy fighters, and (3) terrain type ▪ Incorporate the effect of weight-induced fatigue on marksmanship ▪ Modify to simulate live fire testing done in the summer of 2018 conducted by The Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad Team (MARCORSYSCOM) ▪ P(H) moving targets at various speeds (100-300 meters) Repeat experiments with a high-resolution simulation model (e.g. COMBAT XXI) Conduct field experiments to compare with the simulation results Explore weight’s effect on medical readiness and separation/retirement rates 27 :1 Ri?e man TEE I11 193 I39 Squad teader Grenadier Automatic rifle man Machine gunner Asst. rnaehine gunner Source GAD anal [it] 120 140 160 Pounds - Primary personal protective equipment {about 2? pounds} SMAW Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon ysis of Army and Marine Corps data. Other (food. water. ammunition. uniform items, weapon systems, Winona Rifleman 91} Automatic rifleman g4 Squad leader 102 103 Grenadier SMAW 123 gunner Machine gunner 124 Asst. javetin gunner 159 Pounds El} 30 120 14B 160 communications equipment, etc} 28 Standard Fighting Load Fighting Load Clothing Worn & Packed Weight [lbs.] Quantity Total Weight [lbs.] MCCU, Blouse and Trouser 2.97 1 2.97 Uniform, Utility, Belt 0.3 1 0.3 Ballistic Eye Pro 0.31 1 0.31 M50 Mask w/ carrier 3 1 3 Gloves 0.3 1 0.3 T-Shirt, Green 0.18 1 0.18 Undershorts 0.25 1 0.25 MC Combat Boots w/ laces 3.12 1 3.12 Socks 0.16 1 0.16 Watch, Wrist 0.1 1 0.1 Card, ID 0.03 1 0.03 Tags, ID 0.1 1 0.1 Helmet w/ cover, band, and NVG base plate 3.5 1 3.5 Plate Carrier w/ soft armor 9 1 9 SAPI Plates (front, back, and 2x side) 19 1 19 Pouches (1-dump, 3-magazine, 2 grenade) 2 1/3/2 2 IFAK - A1 First Aid Kit 2.1 1 2.1 AN/PVS-14 w/Elbow/Rhino Mount 1 1 1 Hydration System, CamelBak (Full) 6.91 1 6.91 Total Fighting Load Weight (not including 54.33 weapon, SL-3, and MOS-specific equipment) 29 Standard Assault Load Assault Load Clothing Worn & Packed Weight [lbs.] Quantity Total Weight [lbs.] MCCU, Blouse and Trouser 2.97 1 2.97 Uniform, Utility, Belt 0.3 1 0.3 Ballistic Eye Pro 0.31 1 0.31 M50 Mask w/ carrier 3 1 3 Gloves 0.3 1 0.3 T-Shirt, Green 0.18 1 0.18 Undershorts 0.25 1 0.25 MC Combat Boots w/ laces 3.12 1 3.12 Socks 0.16 1 0.16 Watch, Wrist 0.1 1 0.1 Card, ID 0.03 1 0.03 Tags, ID 0.1 1 0.1 Helmet w/ cover, band, and NVG base plate 3.5 1 3.5 Plate Carrier w/ soft armor 9 1 9 SAPI Plates (front, back, and 2x side) 19 1 19 Pouches (1-dump, 3-magazine, 2 grenade) 2 1/3/2 2 IFAK - A1 First Aid Kit 2.1 1 2.1 AN/PVS-14 w/Elbow/Rhino Mount 1 1 1 Hydration System, CamelBak (Full) 6.91 1 6.91 Assault Pack 5.51 1 5.51 MRE 1.3 3 3.9 Parka and Trouser, APEC 3.6 1 3.6 Tool, Entrenching w/ Case 2.7 1 2.7 Total Assault Load Weight (not including 70.04 weapon, SL-3, and MOS-specific equipment) 30 Past Recommended Loads Recemrnendatien by Seurce {in lbs} ?r?ear Recommending Bedsr Fighting Lead [lbs] Late 1B00s German William Frederick Studies ?18 1920s Hygiene Advisersr Cernrnittee efthe British Armyr ?10415 1930s British Aldershet Cemrnittee SS 1950 US. Celenel SLA Marshall ?10 1990 US. Armsr FM 21-18 48 2001 Science Beard Summer Studyr 50 2003 USMC I{Zemeat Lead 50.? 200? US. Naval Research Advisery Cemrnittee 50 31 References Department of the Navy (1997) Warfighting. MCDP 1, Washington, DC, http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf. United States Marine Corps (2016) The Marine Corps Operating Concept: How an Expeditionary Force Operates in the 21st Century. Washington, DC. http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/MOC/ Peoples G, Silk A, Notley S, Holland L, Collier B (2010) The effect of a tiered body armour system on soldier physical mobility. Research paper, University of Wollongong, Australia, http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=smhpapers. Marshall SLA (1980) The Soldier’s Load and The Mobility of a Nation (The Marine Corps Association, Quantico, Virginia). Department of the Navy (1991) Marine Rifle Squad. MCWP 3-11.2, Washington, DC, https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCWP%20311.2%20Marine%20Rifle%20Squad.pdf. Jilson E (2016) Final Report: Individual Marine And Reinforced Rifle Squad Combat Load Report (SURVIAC, Washington, DC). National Institute of Justice (2008) Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor. NIJ Standard-0101.06, Washington, DC. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf Fish L, Scharre P (2018) The soldier’s heavy load. Report, Center for a New American Security, Washington, DC, https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNAS_SuperSoldiers_4_Soldiers-Heavy-Load-FINAL-2.pdf?mtime=20180926112023. Photos ▪ Google images ▪ http://archive.defense.gov/photoessays/PhotoEssaySS.aspx?ID=5148 32