Hvordan soldatutrustningen påvirker mobiliteten til soldaten resultater fra LEAP-tester ved US Marine Corps’ fasiliteter

FFI-Report 2017
This publication is only available in Norwegian

About the publication

ISBN

9788246429496

Size

8.9 MB

Language

Norwegian

Download publication
Dennis Bo Rahbek Daniela Heinrich
The type of equipment that a soldier carries on a mission depends on the nature of the mission. If a high level of ballistic protection against fragments and projectiles is required, then the burden (weight, volume and stiffness) from the protective equipment will be significant and thus lower the mobility of the soldier. However, it is difficult to determine exactly how much the mobility is lowered, unless this is studied more closely with quantitative methods. The US Marine Corps has developed a test program, Load Effects Assessment Program (LEAP), which is used to assess how the soldier equipment affects the mobility of the soldier. In September 2016, a delegation from the Norwegian Army and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) visited the US Marine Corps’ LEAP facility to perform MC-LEAP tests. The main purpose of the trip was to assess whether it would be useful for the Norwegian Army to establish its own LEAP facility. Such a facility could be used for both requirement specification and in training and education. This report presents the results from the Norwegian MC-LEAP tests. Nine soldiers completed the LEAP tests with eight different configurations: a basic configuration (helmet, rifle, uniform, boots) without vest, two vests without significant protection (M10 and M13), four configurations of vests with ballistic protection (Swedish, US and two with M07), and M07 with additional fragment protection. A comparison with LEAP tests conducted by professional Swedish soldiers shows that it is not adequate to focus solely on the equipment when it comes to mobility. The Norwegian conscript soldiers were about 25% slower than the Swedish professional soldiers. This shows that training and education are important parameters, as well as optimizing the equipment. Despite the low number of test persons, the tests give insight into how the equipment limits the soldier’s mobility. It was shown that a vest with protective equipment and pockets (M07 type) increases the soldier’s time in the obstacle course by 30% compared to the basic configuration. Adding additional fragment protection, this increases to 50%. Overall, the results indicate that an increase in the soldier equipment weight of 1% of the soldier weight increases the obstacle course time by 2 %.

Newly published