Table Of ContentOfficial U.S. Army Natick Report on Field
Equipment Lessons Learned in Afghanistan
07/21/2002
Problems: ignored
The following is an unvarnished report from a Senior NCO who fought in
Anaconda. I made some punctuation and spelling corrections. Clarifications
in brackets [ ]. Following his AAR is links to see the "official" report visually
as power point slides and below that, the written text.
Rakkasan lessons learned
By a 187th Regiment 1st Sergeant
"I would like to pass on a few things learned during our recent
deployment. It won't be in a specific order so bare with me.
I guess the biggest lesson I learned is nothing changes From how
you train at jrtc. We all try to invent new dilemmas and hp's because
it's a real deployment but we end up out-smarting ourselves. Go with
what you know, stick with how you train.
Some of the things in particular were Soldier's load, because you're
in the mountains of Afghanistan you try to invent new packing lists,
or new uniforms. Some units went in with gore-tex and polypro only,
when the weather got bad they were the only ones to have cold
weather injuries that needed to be evaced. We've all figured out how
to stay warm during the winter so don't change your uniforms. It was
never as cold as I've seen it here or Ft Bragg during the winter.
Because of the high altitude's and rough terrain we all should have
been combat light.
That's the first thing you learn at jrtc [Joint Readiness Training
Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana], you can't fight with a ruck on your
back.
We packed to stay warm at night. Which was a mistake; you take
only enough to survive until the sun comes up.
We had extreme difficulty moving with all our weight. If our
movement would have been to relieve a unit in contact or a time
sensitive mission we would not have been able to move in a timely
manner. It took us 8 hours to move 5 clicks. [Editor that's less than 1
mph]
With just the [Interceptor hard body armor] vest and [Enhanced
Tactical Load Bearing Vest or the MOLLE vest] lbv we were easily
carrying 80 lbs. Throw on the ruck and your sucking.
We out-smarted ourselves on how much water to carry. We took in
over 12 quarts per man on our initial insertion, which greatly
increased our weight. In the old days you did a three-day mission
with 6 quarts of water, and that was on Ft Campbell in the summer.
Granted we were all heat exhaustion [casualties] at the end but it's
more than do-oable. I say go In with six quarts, if your re-supply is
working than drink as much as possible keeping the six quarts in
case re-supply gets weathered out. We also over tasked our
helicopter support bringing in un-needed re-supply because we've
lost a lot of our needed field craft.
We didn't even think to take iodine tablets [to purify water from
melted snow etc.] until after we got on the ground.
If you're in a good fight your going to need all your birds for
medevac and ammo re-supply.
Bottom line is we have to train at the right Soldiers load, relearn how
to conserve water. [Editor: CARRY THE DAMN AMMO YOU WOULD
IN COMBAT NOW IN PEACETIME!]
How many batteries does it take to sustain for three days etc.? Take
what you need to survive through the night and then wear the same
stuff again.
The next day, you can only wear so much snivel gear. It doesn't do
any good to carry enough to have a different ward robe [set of
BDUs] every day. Have the bn invest in gore-tex socks, and smart
wool socks; our battalion directed for every one to wear gore-tex
boots [Intermediate Cold Weather Boots] during the mission, you
can imagine how painful that was. 71 gave up my boots to a new
Soldier who didn't have any so I wore jungle boots, gore-tex socks
and a pair of smart wool socks and mv feet never got wet or cold
even in the snow.
You need two pairs [of boots] so you can dry them out every day.
All personnel involved hated the lbv its so constricting when you
wear it with the vest, then when you put a ruck on it cuts off even
more circulation.
I would also recommend wearing the body armor during all training,
I doubt if we'll ever fight without it again.
It significantly affects everything that you do.
Equipment wise, our greatest shortcomings were optics and organic
or direct support long-range weapons. After the initial fight all our
targets were at a minimum of 1500m all the way out to as far as you
could see. Our 60[mm] and 81[mm]'s accounted for most of the kills.
Next was a Canadian Sniper team with a MacMillian .50 cal [sniper
rifle]. They got kills all the way out to 2500m.
The problem with our mortars was there as a 24 hour [Close Air
Support] cas cap. And they wouldn't fly near us if we were firing
indirect. Even though our max ordnant: [how high mortar rounds arc
into the sky] was far beneath their patterns. Something for you and
your alo [Air Liaison Officer] to work out. The other problem was the
Air Force could never fly in small groups of Personnel, I watched
and called corrections on numerous sorties and they could never hit
the targets. My verdict is if you want it killed use your mortars. Pay
close attention to ti-hz direction of attack your ALO is bringing in the
CAS. Every time it was perpendicular to us we were hit with
shrapnel. Not to mention the time they dropped a 2,000 lbs [bomb] in
the middle of our company, it didn't go off by a sheer miracle I'm
sure. [Marine] Cobras and 2.75" [rockets] shot at us. Also, once
again, they were shooting perpendicular to our trace. Aviation
provided the most near misses of all the things we did.
I recommend all sl's [Squad Leaders] and pus [Platoon Sergeants]
carry binoculars with the mils reticle. Countless times tl's [Team
Leaders] and sl's had the opportunity to call in mortars. More
importantly is leaders knowing how to do it. Our bn has checked all
the blocks as far as that goes. Guess what they still couldn't do it.
Especially the pus contrary to popular belief its not the pl [Platoon
leader] who's going to call it in its the Soldier in the position who
will. If you don't have the binos guess what? You have to wait for
somebody to run to the M240[B Medium Machine Gun] position to
go get them. Also same goes with not knowing how to do It, you
have to wait for the FO [artillery or mortar Forward Observer] to
move to that position.
Plugger [AN/PSN-11 Global Positioning System] battle drill is the
way to go, even with the civilian models [Signals are unscrambled
now thanks to President Clinton]; the contour interval on the maps
is outrageous so terrain association was difficult. Range Estimation
was probably the most important or critical thing you do. If you
close on your estimation you'll get the target. We all carried in 2
mortar rounds apiece and that was more than enough. We took mix
of everything; the only thing we used was wp [White Phosphorous]
and he [High Explosive]. All together we took in at least 120 rounds
as a company air assault.
Its was always seats out due to the limited # of ac [aircraft] and the #
of personnel we had to get in. That presents a few problems.
Offloading a CH-47 on a hot lz [landing zone] packed to the gills is
an extremely slow process (2-3 minutes). Landing was the most
dangerous part. While we were there just because of the conditions
and terrain, if you crash without seats and seatbelts your going to
have a lot of broken bones. If possible maybe you could send in the
first few lifts with seats in, that will get the helo off the lz much
quicker then following ac seats out. Food for thought
Just like the Vietnam the pilots were courageous and will do all and
even more of what you ask of them. However, re-supply was a big
difficulty. Problem was they never put the right package at the right
place and you know what that means, especially when its 120mm
mortar rounds that fell into a deep ravine. Fix was put a lno [Liaison
Officer] on the bird with grids frequencies's and call signs. Our S-4
had a group of supply sergeants that would accompany the re-
supply's. Also as the S-3 push the birds down to the company freqs.
That killed us the whole time. Bn would never push the birds down
to us so they were always landing in the wrong place or dropping off
resupply in the wrong place. Same with AH-64s [Apache Attack
helicopter gunships] we always say give them to the user but we
never do it. We always had to relay thru the S-3 to give corrections.
Flying was by far the most dangerous thing we did while we were
there.
The environment was extremely harsh. The cold wasn't that bad, its
the hard cold dry wind that will eat you up like you wouldn't believe.
Chapstick, chapstick, chapstick, sun screen, sun screen, sun
screen.
[4x2 All-Terrain Vehicles made by John Deere] Gators, didn't hold up
to good, that place eats up tires like you wouldn't believe. [Editor:
why we need TRACKED vehicles] They're a great thing to have when
their running. Also there real easy getting them into to the fight,
getting out is a different story, your always scrounging for ac when
its time to go. So be prepared to leave a few Gators. [WTFO?]
We used the [Javelin missile Command Launch Unit infared thermal
sights] clu's a lot, every night for that matter. Beautiful piece of
equipment. They consume a lot of batteries and add a lot of weight.
After it snowed, two in the company stopped working until they
dried out a few days later. Other than that they held up real well.
Go in with a good or should I say great [battlesight] zero on all your
weapon's. We never got a chance to re zero while we were there.
Also zero all your spare weapons for replacements etc. On our last
mission I hit a dud M203 [grenade] at 75m with one round from my
M4 using my M68 [Close Combat Optic]. It held a zero great. A 1SG
[1st Sergeant] doesn't normally abuse his weapon like a young
Soldier does though. However, if they treat their weapons like tiller
nintendos they should be alright.
Our bn bought the ammo bags for the M240[B Medium Machine
Guns] from London Bridge, they worked great.
Knee pads are a must, needless to say not all personnel had some
msr stoves are the shit, and they burn any kind of fuel. Quality sun
glasses probably more important [as] would be safety or shooting
glasses. Bolle goggles are the way to go if you can afford it.
We had one guy who was hypothermic one night, the medics and a
wool blanket saved his ass. Green wool still can't be beat.
Fleece gloves are the best.
We also eventually (after we were done) received Barrett .50 cals [2+
km range] for our snipers. Their M24's [308 caliber, 7.62mm range
only 1 km] never got used because of the extreme ranges. I think
each company should have one. Or a sniper team or a M2 [Heavy
Machine Gun] with crew.
Lots of thermite grenades and C-4, we used them a lot our engineers
were great
Proficiency with the M203's [Grenade Launchers] right now there
isn't a viable sight for the M-4 [5.56mm Carbine], so lots of practice
with Kentucky windage. Lots of HE also mounting brackets for the
[an/] peq-2 [Night laser aiming device] for the AT-4's [M136 84mm
disposable rockets] the smaw-d [Disposable version of 83mm
shoulder fired medium assault weapon rocket launcher] comes with
one. Also the smaw-d is smaller, easier to carry and hits
significantly harder. Won't collapse a cave but will definitely clear it.
Soldiers did great you can always depend on them. They are
extremely brave and want to fight. Gotta do realistic training, they'll
do it just like we teach them, they'll patch a bullet hole just like you
taught them in EIB, but they won't take off the Soldier's vest to
check for more bullet holes etc.
Because of the extreme ranges you need the 3x adapters for the
[AN/PVS-7B Night Vision Goggles] nvg's
There's a lot more I could talk about but probably better left unsaid
on e-mail. Hope this gives you some food for thought"
PROBLEMS FOREWARNED:
The 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) since 1997 has online;
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop
offered and detailed through U.S. Army official channels; commercial, off-the-
shelf and equipment modification solutions to almost every problem listed
(and then some like ahumm, SOLVING THE SOLDIER'S LOAD) in the appalling
recent U.S. Army Natick Afghanistan Report (which is viewable here). As we
also forewarned, the u.s. marine designed "MOLLE" gear has been a
COMPLETE and utter failure in Afghanistan service--even for the short time
marines made a token ground appearance and fled back to their ships as the
U.S. Army dodges the RPGs, mortars and AKM rounds to hunt down and kill
the enemy terrorists.
The bottom line is, closed-minded and small-minded people (we know all
about them, don't we?) are running the Congressionally-mandated and
funded Army's Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) which could have
PREVENTED this sad state of affairs by some low-cost purchases.
Want to make a suggestion to SEP?
SEP Home Page
Make a Soldier Equipment Improvement suggestion to SEP
How about posting a suggestion to someone that DOES CARE?
Got bad gear, Soldier? Nobody listening? Post your ideas at Brigade
Quartermasters: they'll get good gear to the good guys (you)
www.actiongear.com/bbactiongear2/main.asp
Defense Week
August 12, 2002
Pg. 1
Afghanistan Exposed Flaws In Army Field Gear: Report
By Nathan Hodge
An internal Army survey has found a number of flaws in gear used by infantry
Soldiers in Afghanistan during combat operations.
According to the document, U.S. Soldiers found much to praise about their
gear. But they also singled out problems with vital pieces of equipment such
as body armor and boots. In addition, they reported weapons that
malfunctioned or were difficult to maintain, including the M4 Carbine, M9
Pistol and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
The survey was conducted this spring, but its findings have not been
publicized. It was provided to Defense Week by someone concerned about
the quality of personnel gear. The document provides an inside look at
shortfalls in equipment on which Soldiers' lives and missions often depend.
However, the Army office that is reviewing the report says the findings are
nothing new and that the service is already in the process of fielding better
gear.
In mid-March, U.S. Central Command asked the Natick Soldier Center, the
Army's laboratory for developing and testing new Soldier equipment, to
evaluate the performance of Soldiers' small arms and field gear. Army Lt. Col.
Charlie Dean of Natick traveled to Afghanistan to interview soldiers from the
101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division who took part in
Operation Anaconda, the last set-piece battle in Afghanistan; Natick also
surveyed 10th Mountain Soldiers after they returned to Ft. Drum, N.Y.
The Army declined to make Dean available for an interview, saying he was
going on temporary duty overseas.
Steve Pinter, deputy project manager for Soldier Systems at the Army's
Program Executive Office-Soldier (PEO-Soldier) at Ft. Belvoir, Va.,
downplayed the findings, saying: "From the PEO's perspective, there was
very little, if any, new information in the report." [Courtney Massengale]
PEO-Soldier manages the field gear in question. In an interview, Pinter said
the Army is already readying better equipment. But the service just hasn't
given it to Soldiers yet.
"It's a function of fielding it to the entire force in quantity," he said.
Ill-fitting armor
For instance, the report found the standard-issue ("ALICE") rucksack was a
poor fit with the Army's new Interceptor Body Armor.
The 16.4-pound body armor consists of a Kevlar vest, detachable neck and
groin guards and a pair of ceramic plates that slide into front and rear
pockets. The vest alone can protect against shrapnel and 9mm pistol rounds.
When inserted, the ceramic plates can halt 7.62mm rifle bullets-the same
ammunition used in the Kalashnikov assault rifles favored by al Qaeda
fighters.
During Operation Anaconda, Soldiers reportedly removed the back plate to
increase their mobility, because the ALICE backpack was a poor fit. Pinter
explained that the body armor is designed to complement a new and
improved rucksack called the Load Carriage System, not the older ALICE
pack.
"The direction from senior Army leadership was everyone going into theater
would have the new body armor, for obvious reasons," he said. "So if you
were in a unit that had the new body armor and the old rucksack, there were
some compatibility issues when you wore the back plate of your body armor.
... When you put the new body armor with the new load carriage, they are
compatible."
Undoubtedly, the new body armor saved many lives. According to after-action
reports, almost all of the wounds suffered by Soldiers during Anaconda were
in the extremities, suggesting that the helmet and body armor did a good job
of protecting the head and vital organs. But at least one Soldier may have
suffered a fatal wound because of a poor fit.
According to the report: "Proper sizing [for body armor] was an issue. One
Soldier was killed when he was shot through the side and the bullet passed
between the front and rear armor by the sizing straps."
No vest can offer complete protection from a high-powered rifle round. But if
worn correctly, the body-armor system is supposed to reduce the chance of
that happening.
"I am not familiar with that particular instance," said Pinter. "However, the
body armor that we're talking about does not cover the entire body, for
obvious reasons. The plates basically cover the chest area and the back
area ... and there are areas that the Soldier's still vulnerable."
The body armor problem was one of several. Operation Anaconda was
conducted at high altitudes, and Soldiers complained their desert boots were
not suited to the task. [Editor they are HOT WEATHER not mountain boots!]
In addition, Soldiers paid for a lot of key items out of pocket, including
flashlights, CamelBak hydration systems, weapons-cleaning kits, flexible
gloves and miniature binoculars. Pinter pointed out that the Army is phasing
in items like the CamelBak, but it will be "numerous years" before every
Soldier can be issued one.
"Actually the Army is currently issuing CamelBak with the new Load Carriage
System [backpack]," he said. "However, we are in the very early stages of
fielding the new Load Carriage System, and so not every soldier has
CamelBak." [Editor: "LCS" is a misleading term to cover up the fact that its
the failed marine designed MOLLE system that's being fielded]
Into the circular file?
Pinter said PEO-Soldier's current product manager, Lt. Col. Dave Anderson,
"is in receipt of the report. He and his team are taking a hard look at the
issues that were brought up. I'd like to note, though, that some of these
issues may be anecdotal." [Editor: more pooh, poohing]
Also, Pinter said it is impossible for the Army to tailor gear to everyone's
satisfaction: "When you talk about the individual uniforms and clothing and
equipment, everyone has their own taste. It's the responsibility of the
leadership to field something that's credible and operationally suitable across
the force. Generally speaking, if you have a hundred Soldiers, not all hundred
Soldiers are going to like the way the equipment is worn and
utilized." [Patronizing attitude displayed here]
That is the sort of view that infuriates Mike Sparks, a former active-duty
infantry officer who runs a discussion group and web site
(geocities.com/air_mech_strike) devoted to Army equipment. He called the
report a "whitewash" and suggested it would be merely filed away.
"These people don't want to solve problems and face problems," he said.
Sparks advocates a more bottom-up approach to fielding better gear, with the
Army more actively soliciting input from the Soldiers who wear the
equipment.
"Why can't the Soldiers have a [part in the] decision-making process to
decide what gear the Army pays for?" he asked.
Pinter said there are "several avenues" for taking troops' suggestions. The
congressionally mandated Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) provides
annual funding to PEO-Soldier to take ideas from industry and from the field,
he said.
Sparks was skeptical of that approach.
"This is why a lot of our gear sucks," he said. "Most colonels I've run into are
concerned more with form than function and are not techno-tactically
oriented and candid."
He suggested the Army tap the expertise of "gear gurus" in individual units,
giving them the chance to train at Natick.
"These gear experts would go to Natick Labs and be school trained on the
proper fit and wear of all Army equipment and have field living [survival skills]
taught to them," he said. "They can advise commanders that a hot- weather
desert boot is not a mountain boot and how to properly size Soldiers for body
armor so a bullet doesn't sneak by and kill them."
GEAR PROBLEMS LOW-PRIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTAINING THE
STATUS QUO
The Afghan power points below show a number of gear problems that many
of us have solved and proposed solutions through SEP and Natick channels
all for naught. The Brits have a plastic ammo box for their M240-type medium
machine guns. We could have upgraded the Kevlar helmet with a better
chinstrap and suspension, offered the Nomex flyer's glove with a little
insulation and in a black color, ALICE rucksacks could have synthetic frames
and quick-release buckles, issued a chest binocular/NVG pouch and provided
a toothbrush/shaving razor cartridge attachment point on the end of the MRE
spoon years ago. However, the decision makers generally don't act on Soldier
inputs. The Afghan gear report is likely going to "whitewash" systemic
failures so this is why we are calling on a Soldier board to be formed and
given the money, authority and time to make Soldier gear decisions to
prevent recurring failures like experienced in Afghanistan.
Whoever is ruining SEP should be replaced by someone who listens and
ACTs on suggestions for improvement by Soldiers instead of pooh-poohing
(ignoring) them with words like "dislikes" and "anecdotal". Tell the families of
the dead Soldiers that their son's death was "anecdotal". If a piece of gear
doesn't work, gets left behind or gets someone killed it isn't some trivial
matter.
The enemy terrorists got away from our Anaconda cordon and search
operation while we were bogged down with equipment, a lot of it bad, so this
is not a small matter. Details:
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/realmountaindivision.htm
Solution: Soldier TA-50 Board and Subject Matter Experts in every Army unit
OK.
I think you see we are furious, and rightfully so. Here is THE ultimate solution.
We've just learned that its a "Council of Colonels" that meets to decide gear
for us grunts for the SEP program to "type classify" (tested to "perfection" to
be declared Army kosher) when it should be the lower-ranking gear gurus
who are actually humping (carrying) the machine guns, rockets and mortars
from every Army command representing their specific climes/places/missons.
This is why a lot of our gear sucks. Most Colonels we've run into are
concerned more with form than function and are not technotactically oriented
and candid. SGTs, LTs and CPTs should decide on our new gear.
The expertise of the natural "gear gurus" should be tapped and have them
designated as a "Master TA-50 Specialist"---an additional skill identifier (ASI).
These gear experts would go to Natick Labs and be school trained on the
proper fit and wear of ALL Army equipment and have field living (survival
skills) taught to them so they can advise Commanders that a hot weather
desert boot is NOT a mountain boot and how to properly size Soldiers for
body armor so a bullet doesn't sneak by and kill them. The Army's Master TA-
50 Specialists would also train the Soldiers in their companies how to wear
and maintain their TA-50 as well as be pro-active about getting better gear.
The Army is strangely an organization that goes "camping" yet hasn't trained
itself how to "camp". Lay on top the need for combat mobility 4-7 mph which
requires smart loading and constantly improved equipment, its clear that a
Soldier from every Company in the Army should go to "gear school" to
become a Master TA-50 Expert. To fund this we should cancel the un-needed
LAV-III/Stryker deathtrap armored car purchases and upgrade superior
tracked M113A3 Gavins into IAVs for the IBCTs. Call them tracked IBCTs or
"Gavin Brigades".
An Army bureaucrat informs us that Company Commanders can buy with unit
funds whatever gear they need for their men from the GSA Catalog and CTA
5900 (not Army "type classified" but available for purchase: "good enough"
using Army funds) but this is something that's not pro-actively done and
known about. Have you ever heard about this? GSA catalog is on CDs Supply
Sergeants have so it takes a bit of looking when it should be on the www for
all Soldiers to see.
What we need is a Soldier's Board of lower ranking gear experts who will
review new gear, get it on the GSA Catalog/CTA 5900 and then publish an
annual focused list throughout the Army encouraging
Commanders/units/individuals to buy these items. Apparently its ok for units
to fund-raise to build up a unit fund or this purpose, too so not having the
money is not an obstacle. This list of authorized field gear on GSA/CTA 5900
should be placed on the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) secure web site so
any Soldier can see what the Soldier Board recommends they get ASAP.
Every year, every Major Army Division (Airborne, Air Assault, Light,
Mechanized, Armored etc.) and separate unit (2nd ACR, 172nd Arctic Brigade,
SF, Rangers) has ITS SOLDIERS select by vote a field gear representative
who will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia to decide for the rest of the Army
what off-the-shelf Soldier gear to buy and what gear to develop. Every unit
has at least one "gear guru" right for this job; a pro-active Soldier who
studied field gear and on his own tinkers and tests what works and does not.
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND DOES NOT SELECT THE GEAR BOARD
SOLDIERS. Some out-of-touch Army General does NOT select some political
yes-man to be on the board to keep the troops ill-equiped and "in their place".
Some DA civilian with a ponytail going through perpetual mid-life crisis does
NOT decide what items are bought or developed, THE SOLDIERS DECIDE. No
"Council of Colonels". Its the individual Soldier's lives that are at stake not
some bureaucrat in a comfy office with one retirement already under his belt
longing for the good 'ole days when the equipment they had sucked and
everyone liked it. What the Soldier TA-50 Board decides AUTOMATICALLY
become AUTHORIZED Soldier optional wear/use items without the current
kill-joy, politically correct "uniform board" having one say in their decisions.
They do a great job keeping everyone miserable and without esperit de corps
during garrison hours; the field Soldier's attire should be guided by
FUNCTION decided by the mud-Soldiers. Each year a list of acceptible
alternatives will be decided on by the Board for Soldiers to buy/use on their
own option. Each year the board will decide on commensurate with the SEP
budget what items will be bought/issued to enhance Soldiers immediately.
And each year the board will see what industry and Natick Labs have
"cooking" and provide feedback.
Airborne!
The Staff
1st TSG (A)
WE TOLD THEM SO!
The British Royal marines in Afghanistan have 7.62mm ammo boxes so their
M240B-type medium machine guns are ready-to-fire, why not the U.S. Army's?
1. 7.62mm ammo bag/box
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/mmg.htm
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/pab.htm
2. (Cargo) Rigger's belts
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/rigger.htm
3. Covers for Sun, Wind, Dust Goggles, anti-fogging and optics camouflage
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/camie.htm
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/nofogofwar.htm
4. Nomex flyer's gloves beefed up to be more sturdy, enough to rappel/fast
rope
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/gloves.htm
5. Smaller binos with MILS reticle and NVG chest pouch
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/nightvision.htm
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/binos.htm
6. Better poncho liners/LWSB
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lwsb.htm
7. ALICE rucksack frame and snap fixes (use FASTEX)
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/rucksack.htm
8. Use combat MAG-1 glasses instead of brown birth control glasses
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/glasses.htm
9. Better Kevlar helmet chinstrap/suspension
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/chinstrap.htm
10. Better boot designs
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/boots.htm
11. Better body armor (gunshield)
www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/gunshield.htm
NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense
No. 415-02
(703)697-5131(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2002
(703)428-0711(public/industry)
SOLDIER DIES OF WOUNDS RECEIVED IN AFGHANISTAN
The Department of Defense announced today that Sgt. 1st Class Christopher
James Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., died on Aug. 7 as the result of
wounds received in action in Afghanistan on July 27.
Speer was one of five Soldiers wounded in the same incident and had been
evacuated to Germany for medical care. The other four Soldiers' injuries were
not life threatening and they were treated at Bagram.
Speer was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Army Special Operations Command
at Fort Bragg, N.C.
[Web version: www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2002/b08122002_bt415-02.html]
