Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT This study examined tbe effects of load carriage on performance of an explosive, anaerobic tnilitary
task. A task-specific assessment requiring five 30-m timed sprints was developed to address this question. Seventeen
soldiers (female = 5, male = 12) volunteered to undergo the test under two experimental conditions; unloaded (cotnbat
uniform and boots) and loaded (unloaded plus 21.6 kg fighting load, comprising webbing, weapon, helmet, and combat
body armor). When loaded, there was a significant increase in tbe mean 30-m sprint time compared to unloaded (8.2
1.4 seconds vs. 6.2 0.8 seconds; p < 0.01). Of the total increase in mean sprint time, 51.7% occurred within the first
5 m. Fetnale sprint times were affected to a larger extent than male (36% vs. 29%, respectively) as a result of the increased
load. Fighting load significantly affected soldier mobility when conducting explosive, anaerobic military tasks, particularly among females, and specific physical conditioning should be considered to minimize this effect.
INTRODUCTION
Historically, the wearing of combat body armor (CBA) has
been restricted to combat soldiers. However, current operations involve complex omnipresent threats, resulting in the
need for all soldiers, regardless of occupational specialty, to
wear CBA during operational deployment. Some Australian
soldiers, particularly those in combat service support roles,
may rarely wear CBA before predeployment training, allowing limited opportunity for specific and functional physical conditioning. In general, the CBA and helmet worn by
Australian soldiers can weigh between 10 and 15 kg. In addition, a soldier in "fighting load" is required to carry a weapon,
ammunition, and other personal supplies resulting in a minimum external load of 21.6 kg.
The effects of load carriage on the performance of explosive, high-intensity military tasks have previously been evaluated. A negative impact on performance is clear across all
research; however, methodologies have been varied. Tasks
assessed have ranged from single and repeated sprints, to
physical mobility assessments, obstacle courses, and battlefield simulations.'-* Such a wide range of tasks makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions relevant to today's soldier.
Furthermore, individual sprints and battlefield simulations
may not represent tasks expected of combat service support
soldiers. Research gaps also exist when addressing differences
between the abilities of males and females to cope with extra
load while performing explosive, anaerobic military tasks.'
Consequently, there is a clear need to directly measure the
effect of load on the performance of critical defensive military
tasks that are performed at a high intensity, including sex-based
differences. A valid and controlled test to represent such tasks is
necessary to assess the impact of load under these conditions.
The only formal test within the Australian Army to assess
explosive, anaerobic task performance is the Run-DodgeDefence Science and Technology Organisation, 506 Loritner Street,
Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207, Australia.
Jump (RDJ). This requires negotiation of a series of obstacles within a set time frame. As with the tasks highlighted
above, the similarity between this obstacle course and critical
defensive military tasks is unknown. Further, successful performance is dictated to a large extent by skill' and anthropomtrie characteristics.* Considerable attention has been given
to the development of obstacle courses in the past*^''" however
these pose the same problems as the RDJ.
A review of the training processes within the Australian
Army and consultation with military staff indicated that the
minimum anaerobic requirement for a soldier, irrespective of
age, sex, or occupational specialty, was the successful performance of a defensive withdrawal under fire. This task is typically achieved using a break contact drill (BCD), a maneuver
recommended for withdrawing frotn an enetny when engagement is not desired. Soldiers conducting a BCD alternate
between providing covering fire and sprinting down a corridor
of section members, allowing a distinct separation of physical
and skill components. Furthermore, the BCD forms the basis
of other repeat sprint, fire-and-movement activities that may
be encountered by soldiers, such as during a vehicle atnbush
or urban-based operations.
This article aims to determine the impact of load carriage
on performance of explosive, anaerobic tnilitary tasks and to
identify any sex-based differences. The first part of this article
is concerned with the development of a valid assessment of
the performance of a high intensity, explosive military task.
A test based on the BCD would ensure the minimum physical
capacity commensurate with the performance of critical etnergency/defensive duties is assessed. This test is then implemented in the second part of the article to answer the primaty
research question.
METHOD
Experimental procedures were approved by the Australian
Defence Human Research Ethics Comtnittee. All participants
1027
1028
5m
FIGURE 1.
10 m
15 m
20 m
30 m
RESULTS
Part One: Development of a Valid Test for the BCD
The actual fighting load weight carried by infantrymen during the BCD was 22.4 2.5 kg. Table I details mean values
for key task parameters. From the GPS data, total task duration and distance covered for each BCD was determined, as
well as the number of component sprint bouts performed by
each individual. Because of the limited sampling rate of GPS
equipment, video data was relied upon to determine work-torest ratios and thus calculate time spent sprinting and resting
(firing down range). The activity was conducted in light scrub
to ensure an accurate simulation, and subsequently not all
participants were visible at ail times. Therefore, the work-torest ratios were based upon movements for which a complete
cycle of sprint and rest was visible. Considering the variables
surrounding the task in an operational setting, it was felt that
this analysis appropriately indicated the work-to-rest requirements. Changing the environmental profile to allow better
soldier visibility would have changed the nature of the fireand-movement activity.
Parameters presented in Table I were used to form the basis
of a BCD assessment. Minor adjustments ensured the test was
praetical and easily implemented. It was assumed participants
would travel faster aeross an oval than light scrub, so adjustments leaned toward making the test more difficult. The number of sprint bouts was rounded up to 5, although the distanee
was kept constant at 30 m. The estimated speed that participants would travel was also increased from 3.1 to 3.3 m s"',
using previous rushing assessments developed'^ as a guideline.
According to this speed, participants should complete each
sprint in no more than 9 seeonds to ensure the operational scenario is refieeted. Therefore, a minimum of 35 seconds rest
was calculated to maintain the approximate work-to-rest ratio.
Thus, participants were required to complete their five 30-m
sprints at a rate of one every 44 seconds.
TABLE I.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
TABLE II.
Males
Females
Overall
BCD Parameters
174 38
129,6 21,80
4,3 1,0
l;4
30,8
10,1
3,1
Mean BCD Sprint Times (Seconds SD) for Males and Females in the Unloaded (UNL) and Loaded (LD) Conditions
UNL
LD
UNL
LD
UNL
LD
Sprint 1
Sprint 2
Sprint 3
Sprint 4
Sprint 5
Average
5,8 0,5
7,4 0,8
7,1 1,0
9,3 1,5
6,2 0,8
8,0 1,3
5,8 0,5
7,5 0,8
7,0 1,0
9,5 1,5
6,2 0,8
8,1 1,4
5,9 0,4
7,6 0,7
7,1 1,0
9,8 1,9
6,2 0,8
8,3 1,5
5,9 0,4
7,8 0,8
7,1 1,0
9,8 1,4
6,3 0,8
8,4 1,4
5,9 0,4
7,6 0,7
7,2 1,0
9,7 1,7
6,3 0,8
8,2 1,4
5,9
7,6
7,1
9,6
6,2
8,2
0,4
0,7
1,0
1,6
0,8
1,4
1029
Split (m)
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-30
0-30
LD
(Seconds SD)
2.2 0.4
0.9 0.1
0.8 0.1
0.8 0.1
1.6 0.2
6,2 0,8
(Seconds SD)
3.2 0.8
1.1 0.1
2.0 0.1
2.0 0.1
1.9 0.3
8,2 1.4
Difference
(Seconds SD)
1.0 1.0 45.5%
0.2 0.1 21.04%
0.2 0.1 22.93%
0.2 0.1 24.61%
0.4 0.1 25.03%
2,0 0,6
31,47%
1030
male soldiers from this study are considered (1.3% per kg);
however, the discrepancy still exists.
Prone vs. upright starting positions may also explain some
of the differences, particularly considering the largest deerement of all sprint split times occurred from 0 to 5 m. Neither
study^'' detailed starting position; however, results are similar to a third study which saw males and females adopt an
upright, standing start position to sprint 22.9 m.^ The former two studies^'' were conducted on a hardtop road and as
continuous rushes without rest, so it would be reasonable to
assume the starts were from an upright position. Finally, it is
likely that the carriage of a weapon in the loaded condition of
this study also contributed to the magnitude of performance
changes, not only due to the added weight but also due to the
restriction of upper body movements wben sprinting.^'
Given the load carriage effeets discussed in this article, there
is scope for studies to assess the effect of load carriage on other
generic military tasks, sueh as maximal or repetitive manual
handling. The effect of the individual components of fighting load, for example, different CBA ensembles and extremity
attachments, or different webbing configurations, should also
be investigated to gain a more definitive picture of interaetion
between protective ensembles and soldier mobility.
The Australian Army's mandatory physical fitness testing suite does not currently include a measure of explosive,
repeated sprint capability. The BCD simulation test developed
in this study may be used as both an occupational physical fitness test and a valuable indication of basic dployable readiness of soldiers. Not only would soldiers then be assessed
against the performance of this critical task, but it would also
provide a valuable incentive for soldiers to train in an oceupationally specific manner.
In conclusion, this study indicates that carriage of 21.6-kg
fighting load significantly affects soldiers' mobility during
the performance of an explosive, anaerobic military task. In
response to these findings, soldier eonditioning should target these speeific occupational requirements. Future studies
should investigate the effect of fighting load on performance
of other eommon military tasks and the effect of individual
equipment components and variations of the fighting load to
inform equipment evaluation and procurement processes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of Australian Army
3rd Brigade and thank the following researchers for assisting with this
study: Dr, Mark Jaffrey, Warren Roberts, Daniel Ham, Renee Attwells, and
Alison Fogarty,
REFERENCES
1, Danielsson U, Bergh U: Body armour. Effects on performance and
physical load. In: llth International Conference on Environmental
Ergonomics, Edited by Holmer I, Kuklane K, Gao C, Ystad, Sweden,
Freund Publishing House, 2005,
1031
Copyright of Military Medicine is the property of Association of Military Surgeons of the United States and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.