The Load of War. Colonel Marshall's discussion of the items in the load of an infantry soldier seems to me very sound as far as it goes. But in reducing the foot soldier's load, I would
like to go as far as it is possible, and still be practical. For ease of comparison, I have copied Colonel Marshall's equipment list and added my own, showing further reductions which I believe can be made. His list of clothing worn on the person seems to admit of no change except as may be caused by weather conditions. If he means by the "jacket, wool" the part of the o.d. uniform commonly called the Eisenhower jacket. I do not agree. It is a poor combat garment. The water repellent, cotton jacket, field, M1943, is a much more satisfactory combat jacket. The table appears below. Weights of items as given by Colonel Marshall have been accepted as correct.
| Equipment Item | Colonel Marshall's Weight | Recommended Weight |
| Field Uniform | 11.03 | 11.03 |
| Belt, cartridge, and 48 rds M1 ammo | 2.29 | 2.29 |
| Canteen, cover and cup, filled | 2.69 | 2.69 |
| First aid packet | .40 | .40 |
| Helmet w/liner | 2.82 | 2.82 |
| Rifle, M1 w/o bayonet w/sling | 10.30 | 10.30 |
| Two (2) grenades, fragmentation | 2.62 | 2.62 |
| Light pack w/(1) K ration and mess gear | .79 | .92 |
| Includes: | ||
| Haversack and carrier | 2.46 | (2) — |
| Toilet articles | .92 | .92 |
| Change of underwear | .43 | 5) 2.31 |
| Two (2) pairs of socks | .38 | 4) .19 |
| One (1) K ration | 2.31 | (5) 2.31 |
| Mess gear | 1.29 | (6) .50 |
| Total field uniform and battle equipment | 39.94 | 33.25 |
There follows here notes on the table. The numbers correspond to numbers appearing in parentheses in the table.
(1) I don't believe the helmet and liner is worth the weight and expense. I personally know of only one case in which it meant the difference between possible death and a lifetime, partial paralysis. I have no doubt it saved some few casualties but believe that a study based on a careful analysis of medical records will result in its elimination. I understand such an analysis is being made by the Department of the Army.
(2) The haversack and carrier is an annoying method of carrying. It is hard to get into and out of. A snap or zip-on flap pocket, high on the back of the field jacket (M43) would serve better as a place to carry the K ration. The most experienced combat infantry units I saw in Europe when carrying a blanket at all carried it in a short cylindrical roll (18 to 24 inches long) tied at each end with a single shelter-tent rope. A loop of the same rope, between the ends served to sling the roll over one shoulder. It could be removed or reslung in a quick motion of one hand.
(3) A reasonable system of pulling out a few men at one time, as I described above, removes the necessity for each man to carry a change of underwear.
(4) Extra socks should be carried inside the shirt next to the body, or in a pocket if the weather is dry. In continuously wet weather men can change socks several times a day by rotating their two pairs between the feet and the inside of their shirts. This system went far to reducing the number of cases of trench foot among the units which used it in Europe.
(5) There are relatively few times in combat when it is necessary for each man to carry a complete K ration. Much more often one-third or two thirds is adequate. Whenever possible, and it is possible more often than many people think, hot meals should be sent up after dark and before daylight. Mess and supply personnel have too easy a time of it when commanders choose the easy way of letting the front-line soldier exist for days on C and K rations.
(6) The mess gear, less knife, fork and spoon, can be retained at the mess when a unit is in combat. When hot food is sent forward the messkits go along and are brought back. I have used an arbitrary weight of .30 pounds for a nesting combination knife, fork and spoon which I hope will eventually be developed. It can be carried in a pocket like the spoon so many soldiers carried during the war.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the only sound approach to the problem is along the lines suggested by Colonel Marshall. Keep the doughboy lightly loaded and he will be most effective in periods of fear and fatigue. And to go beyond the suggestions of Colonel Marshall, I would train combat and administrative personnel in practical, common sense methods for supplying needed equipment when and where it is needed.
Colonel John G. Van Houten, Infantry, commanded the 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division, in northwestern Europe during the war. A graduate of the University of Florida he has been in the Army since being commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry in 1926. He is now at Fort Leavenworth.
