# US troops 'vulnerable to back pain'



## AWP (Jan 22, 2010)

Ya think? Seriously, did anyone NOT see this coming?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473910.stm



> US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to be withdrawn from the battlefield due to back or joint pain than combat injuries, a study says.
> 
> A survey in a UK medical journal of US evacuees treated at a military hospital in Germany from 2004 to 2007 shows that psychiatric disorders also increased.
> 
> ...


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 22, 2010)

PTSD did not technically exist prior some time around 1986.  The more we know, will have a bigger influence on how we act to prevent future problems.  In '69 on many injuries the Grunt had to just shake it off.  A lot of those grunts now are having a lot of problems with bone and joint problems from "just shaking it off" back then rather that treat the problems.    Part of the idea is when a Soldier comes home, they should be able to integrate into society and carry on with a normal life.   That just did not happen for a lot of Grunts not so long ago.  I think it is very reasonable to see a increase.   Dealing with a problem the sooner to the time of the event helps to minimize and may  even correct the damage done.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 22, 2010)

Wow!  Soldiers backs and joints get AFU doing "Army Trainig, Sir!"?  Who woulda thunk it?  Does the magic reflective belt help reduce these injuries?  :doh:


----------



## AWP (Jan 22, 2010)

HOLLiS said:


> PTSD did not technically exist prior some time around 1986.  The more we know, will have a bigger influence on how we act to prevent future problems.  In '69 on many injuries the Grunt had to just shake it off.  A lot of those grunts now are having a lot of problems with bone and joint problems from "just shaking it off" back then rather that treat the problems.    Part of the idea is when a Soldier comes home, they should be able to integrate into society and carry on with a normal life.   That just did not happen for a lot of Grunts not so long ago.  I think it is very reasonable to see a increase.   Dealing with a problem the sooner to the time of the event helps to minimize and may  even correct the damage done.


 
I totally agree and my sarcasm was at the media (once again) "finding" something that we all knew YEARS ago.


----------



## Crusader74 (Jan 22, 2010)

I'd love to see these fuckers carry a pack half the weight of the person wearing it ..............


----------



## pardus (Jan 22, 2010)

> It found only 14% percent of medical evacuations were due to combat wounds.



That's probably a historically normal figure.



x SF med said:


> Does the magic reflective belt help reduce these injuries?  :doh:



No but a Three Wolf t-shirt would!


----------



## AWP (Jan 22, 2010)

pardus said:


> No but a Three Wolf t-shirt would!


 
I KNOW this isn't sarcasm directed at the TWS.


----------



## pardus (Jan 22, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> I KNOW this isn't sarcasm directed at the TWS.


 
I would never DARE!

My reason for that post is based on this authoritive post on Amazon...




> 927 of 948 people found the following review helpful:
> 5.0 out of 5 stars Video Proof of the Shirts Power!, May 27, 2009
> By 	D. Drury "Three Wolf Man" (Haines, AK United States) - See all my reviews
> (REAL NAME)
> ...


----------



## 0699 (Jan 22, 2010)

Wow.  Hard to believe.

NOT.  Said the guy with 40% VA disability, half of that for my back...


----------



## metalmom (Jan 22, 2010)

Hollis-Sorry-PTSD has always existed-used to be called battle shock.i have it
actually ptsd would be a great thread in how people are dealing with it


----------



## AWP (Jan 22, 2010)

metalmom said:


> Hollis-Sorry-PTSD has always existed-used to be called battle shock.i have it
> actually ptsd would be a great thread in how people are dealing with it


 
We had a PTSD subforum once, but the traffic on it was limited. Maybe set up a group on the board, only members of that group would have access to it.


----------



## metalmom (Jan 22, 2010)

i did a number to my back jumpimg off deuces with the carl g's when i ran weapons stores-maybe not heavy for you guys-but it killed my back


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 23, 2010)

I have 4 crushed discs in my T spine and 2 in my C spine. Spinal cord contact and all kind of never damage… One of the hardest things was trying to explain to the doctors and case manager that I could not pin point when the injury actually accrued. Just recently I read an article in regards to service members having sever untreated back injuries in record numbers…

As most would say “go fucking figure” but I think it’s pretty shitty that I spent 9 months telling a TMC in Iraq that my back was hurting (still going out on missions) and being told by medical doctors and PA’s that I had arthritis… Maybe I could have minimized some of the damage, maybe I could have spent less time in the gym. If I had known there was something very seriously wrong with my back.

Personally I think there needs to be a good look into how the “over loaded soldier” is being affected long term by wearing all that extra gear. 50 to 65lbs just to get out the wire not including assault pack or ruck, I think it’s a little fucking over board…


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2010)

The average load a Soldier has carried into combat throughout all of history is 70lbs.

That's combat, not rucking to combat etc...

It's a tough, shitty, unrewarding job, that offers bugger all more than pain and suffering.

Welcome to the suck!


----------



## x SF med (Jan 23, 2010)

Irish said:


> I'd love to see these fuckers carry a pack half the weight of the person wearing it ..............


 
Lazy bastard, 1/2 your body weight?  Pansy.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Lazy bastard, 1/2 your body weight?  Pansy.


 
I think we averaged about 3/4, though I cut that down the more experienced I got.
Most I carried was my weight, one for one. Ouch was the word of the day, lol.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 23, 2010)

I used to have to grab a tree to pull myself up with my pack, and I was trying to be sneaky.  Worst load was 90kg IIRC. 

I still find my fingers going numb now and then from the nerve damage in the shoulders.


----------



## FNULNU (Jan 23, 2010)

x SF med said:


> Does the magic reflective belt help reduce these injuries?  :doh:


 
You slay me.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 23, 2010)

pardus said:


> The average load a Soldier has carried into combat throughout all of history is 70lbs.
> 
> That's combat, not rucking to combat etc...
> 
> ...



Where are you pulling those numbers from? It’s my understanding that the actual standard in a combat load (i.e. weapon, uniform, LCE) was to be under 30lbs and with the added weight of a ruck not to exceed 72lbs. Also I was of the understanding that the US Army Infantry Standard (basic combat load and 35lb ruck and able to move 12 miles in under 3 hours time “roughly 65 lbs total”) came from Napoleon’s Army and the soldier’s capability. 

Of course this is not including special units (SOF) with special equipment needs as well as long term sustainment needs in units that are Airborne or light.

Over the years there have been numerous reports done on the effectiveness of the soldier in areas of “mobility” where over all they show that over loading the soldier greatly reduces the fighting capability of the unit as a whole. However there have been very few studies in the area of long-term effect on the soldier’s health. I think it is very foolish to assume that b/c you are in the military that your body should be broken, simply b/c other have done it.

As for the welcome to the “Suck” bullshit, try that shit with someone who has not been in the Army as an Infantryman for the last 8 ½ years and is a two-time veteran of the GWOT. I did not get my CIB sitting at home watching the war on TV…

If there is a way to improve and lighten the fighting soldiers combat load I will argue for that day and night so that future soldiers don’t have the problems I now do as do so many of my friends…


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2010)

Reading about the British Army in the 1840's-1850's, the average load a soldier carried while marching was 70 pounds. I'm sure there were some slight variations, but this was rifle, ammo, uniform, bed roll, etc. Everything they needed and carried more or less. The PDF JAB posted has the modern average, depending on one's job, around 70 pounds with riflemen around 65 and that was less ruck, just their fighting load. Obviously, the fighting load of a soldier in Queen Victoria's time would be less as the bed rolls/ haversacks would be ditched prior to the fight. I don't think it unreasonable to presume that Confederate and Union infantry in the 1860's had a similar loadout.

I would not be surprised if we found the load jumped into Normandy by the 82nd and 101st to be somewhere around 70-80 pounds.

Modern war with its gadgets and doodads means that if we take 5 pounds off Joe's armor or ruck he'll probably find a way to add 5 more pound in its place (ammo, IV, an extra battery, anything) and the same goes for reducing the bulk of an item: Joe will find something to put in its place.

I don't see a soldier's load (the weight) changing anytime soon. And I say the following, with total sympathy, but objectively looking at the realities of time and our modern era: If you go into combat arms, even in peacetime, then expect to come out of it in a different physical condition (probably worse) than when you went in. Support personnel stand a reasonable chance of coming out in worse physical shape too depending on their job and duties. It sucks, but it is an unmistakable fact of life.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 23, 2010)

My big argument here is the body armor, 28lbs is fucking retarded. Our armor needs to be around 10lbs to even out the load. If they did this I think you would see a lot of the current rise in back injuries start to go down…

I agree with what you are saying FF, but I also think it needs to be a command driven issue or policy. TL’s, SL’s and PSG’s doing PCC/PCI should be pulling all that extra not needed gear off and tossing that shit. After joe get’s his gear tossed a few times he will stop bringing that extra stuff…


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2010)

JAB, I don't disagree with you on the armor issue. We're so terrified of casualties we've turned our men into walking tanks; Medieval knights would be proud of the DoD....

Having never served in an infantry unit, I can't speak to how they determine what is needed for a patrol, mission, whatever. As an outsider looking in and having been fortunate (I think) to have gone to an NCO-producing school and an officer-producinig one, I believe in my heart that we're preparinig our future leaders to micromanage. Standardized packing lists are drilled into our heads from day one in the Army so it is only natural for leaders at any level to fall back on that. And maybe units have a basic list of equipment and Joe is adding unnecessary gear, but I would not be surprised if some units had a packing list better suited for BNCOC, WLS (or whatever PLDC is called these days), OCS, etc. rather than an operational unit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 24, 2010)

That’s why I was saying TL’s, SL’s and PSG’s.  The “O’s” set the policy as to cut the gear to mission essentials and the NCO’s do the cutting at the platoon or lower level. I am not looking to have a new “mission packing list” from brigade coming down. I am looking for a “smart policy” given me more authority to cut non-essential equipment.

As for the Infantry, ideally you want to be able to set up an AA/PB to store your extra long-term gear and just rock your battle-rattle to the objective. But in the modern battlefield it becomes hard to do so, with worries of gear falling into enemy hands (blah-blah-blah). Personally I think the light Infantry skills have been degraded by a lack of application.

The 7-8 was GTG and offered a “how too” guide to the PL/PSG/SL, but somewhere someone thought they were smarter. :doh: 

Body armor is necessary for many “Infantry missions” but not all missions. The same way a ruck fits in, but not in all. My personal thoughts on basic missions are:

Urban Patrol: Body armor, LCE, water and maybe 1 MRE depending on length.

Ambush: rock as much fire power as you can and fuck the rest.

Rural Patrol: LCE, water and maybe 1 MRE

Assault/Raid: Armor, LCE, Water and mission required equipment.

OP/LP: LCE, Water, MRE’s and extra batters for optics and radios (assault pack).

Recon: See OP/LP with maybe extra ammo/ pyro depending on length.

Force Protection: Full PPE down to the goggles and gloves…

Now depending on sizes of the mission (Squad, Platoon or Company) will set the amounts of added gear, but joe wanting an Ipod or DVD palyer/ Laptop is not needed. Joe wanting those extra snacks and pogy-bait is not needed. Strapping 28 pounds of armor on joe for a 20K/ 3 day patrol is not needed. We need to be smart in how we use our gear and learn that mobility can be just as protective, if not more protective then armor.

Food for thought, the average insurgent is rocking an AK, maybe 2 to 3 mags and very little water/food. Wearing rags and flip-flops and he is still banging and eluding you. How in the fuck can you keep up with him if you’re packing 65+ lbs of gear, with out the use of helo’s and gun trucks? You can’t! And as long as they keep going where our trucks and helos can’t go, we will never kill them…


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2010)

J.A.B. said:


> That’s why I was saying TL’s, SL’s and PSG’s.



I get the rest of your post and in general agree with it, bit not the above. At the risk of really getting off topic the authority and latitude of the NCo is eroding with passing day. "Year of the NCO" may sound great on paper and on the AFN commercials with the corny pseudofolk music in the background, but I see too many senior NCOs doing what the O's want or what they think the O's want. We aren't training our O's to trust their NCO's so why should some O-1/ O-2 allow his PSG to determine the loadout for a mission?

I'm not arguing that O's are smarter, I'm arguing that the culture of the Army isn't going to allow your load to decrease. Realistically, we're talking about an Army with reflective belts in an area where soldiers draw combat pay....you really think some CPT or LT is going to trust his career to a "lowly" enlisted man?

I agree with your post, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 24, 2010)

Very true in all aspects! But you can't blame a guy for dreaming...

I do believe its a double edged blade though, in order for NCO's to regain the trust from the CO/PL he or she needs to prove they can be trusted. I have had very few PL's question my judgment, however I have had company commanders get so far in my buisness that my position was that of a another joe. The O's are not going to work on fixing the problem, only the NCO's can fix the problem and it starts by controlling what you can and by being the best leader you can at your level. Tacically speaking squad and team level are out of any officers lane and that PL should never be micro managing that SL/TL (Sgt this is your mission, now make it happen).


----------

