Bond University epublications@bond Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine Publications Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine 10-11-2012 The Australian Army load carriage context: A challenge for defence capability Rob Orr Bond University, rorr@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hsm_pubs Part of the Sports Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Rob Orr. (2012) "The Australian Army load carriage context: A challenge for defence capability" Annual Military Pharmacy Specialist Interest Group conference. Brisbane, Australia.Oct. 2012. http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hsm_pubs/436 This Conference Paper is brought to you by the Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine at epublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine Publications by an authorized administrator of epublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository Coordinator.
The Australian Army Load Carriage Context: A challenge for Defence capability By A/Prof Rob Orr Military Pharmacy Specialist Interest Group Conference Historical Context 1
Corps Number Age (y) Weight (kg) Height (cm) Range of Ranks n M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Range Range Range Artillery 15 29. (6.2) 87.1 (9.5) 184.0 (6.2) OR-SNR OFF 20-41 65-105 172-194 Armoured 19 29.8 (4.7) 88.1 (13.5) 178.8 (9.1) OR-JNR OFF 21-38 62-108 155-193 Engineers* 93 28.4 (7.0) 83.2 (11.6) 180.1 (7.7) OR-SNR OFF 18-50 52-110 154-200 Infantry 99 33.1 (6.9) 87.3 (10.5) 180.3 (7.6) OR-SNR OFF 22-50 65-126 150-198 Signals* 27 29.2 (7.3) 77.5 (8.1) 175.9 (7.3) OR-SNR OFF 21-46 60-102 153-187 Other* 85 34.6 (8.3) 82.6 (13.3) 176.4 (8.5) OR-SNR OFF 20-56 56-116 154-194 Combined* 338 31.8 (7.8) 84.2 (11.9) 178.9 (8.0) OR-SNR OFF 18-56 52-126 150-200 2
RECENT LOAD CARRIAGE - Loads 90 80 70 Marching Order Patrol Order 62.5 Loads in Kg 60 50 40 30 37.5 47 24 50 20 18 10 0 PT Field Ex Operations RECENT LOAD CARRIAGE - Dress 3
RECENT LOAD CARRIAGE - Duration RECENT LOAD CARRIAGE - Terrain 4
OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE (Marching Order) Mean Marching Order Loads (M&F) Mean Load (kg) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Armoured Corps* 61.2 60.9 Infantry Corps* Engineering Corps* 59.4 Artillery Corps* 58.1 Signals Corps 54.4 Other Corps 42.4 5
OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE (Marching Order) Mean Marching Order Loads (M only) 90 80 70 Mean Load (kg) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 61.2 60.9 59.4 58.1 Armoured Corps* Infantry Corps* Engineering Corps* Artillery Corps* 57.5 Signals Corps 48.8 Other Corps OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE Gender Differences ABSOLUTE LOADS* FEMALE: M = 26.4 kg MALE: M = 39.0 kg p=.045 RELATIVE LOADS FEMALE: M = 43% MALE: M = 47% p=.55 6
OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE Gender Differences Dress Impact of extended combat roles? - Increase Absolute loads? - Excessive Relative loads? 7
OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE Gender Differences ABSOLUTE LOADS Light 20%: M = 34.7 kg Heavy 20%: M = 35.7 kg p=.902 RELATIVE LOADS Light 20%: M = 49% Heavy 20%: M = 36% p=.0509 Admin Static/Posts Foot patrols Mounted patrols Corps % of total reported corps time allocated to specific tasks Mean Load: kg (SD) Artillery 24% 12% 64% - 47.80 (4.7) 65.40 (7.2) 51.20 (25.5) - Armoured - - 16% 84% - - 41.40 (33.8) 36.00 (17.9) Infantry* 9% 1% 78% 13% 47.70 (18.1) 31.40 (0) 52.80 (17.1) 46.60 (15.9) Engineers* 35% 7% 35% 24% 36.40 (14.0) 59.00 (18.1) 44.10 (19.0) 54.70 (24.8) Signals 32% 5% 37% 26% 41.80 (19.3) 38.40 (0) 30.60 (12.3) 25.10 (14.4) Other* 38% 20% 25% 18% 31.20 (15.1) 38.00 (21.4) 40.20 (14.6) 33.60 (14.1) 8
Grade of Terrain Crossed During Operational Load Carriage Activities Volum e of Tasks (% ) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Administration Static Posts Patroling on Foot/Walk Mounted Patrols 10% 0% Flat Mild Hills Steep Hills Terrain The Current Context v Doctrine 9
The Current Context v History The Current Context v History Approximate relative load carried by Roman Legionnaires = 56% and Australian Soldiers in East Timor = 56% 10
Risks associated with Load Carriage When you get shot at, you move as fast as you can but it wasn t very fast. You are just tired. So tired. Justin Kalentis, US Army, wounded in Afghanistan, discussing the loads they were carrying quoted in The Seattle Times (14 Feb 11) Scientific Context in load weight = in the energy cost of standing, walking (forwards and backwards, up and down stairs) and running in speed of load carriage = in the energy cost of carrying given load (more than weight)? 0.5km/h= 10kg in gradient of load carriage = in the energy cost of carrying given load (more than weight)? 1%= 10kg 11
RISKS Risks associated with Load Carriage Injuries: Associated with a variety of injuries (from skin blistering to muscle, ligament, tendon, bone and nervous system injuries) Performance: in load weight = Marksmanship, Grenade throw ability, general task performance & attention to task Risks associated with LC ADF OHSCAR database was searched to identify all reported injuries sustained during load carriage over the period 01 January 2009 to 31 December 2010 Survey data was collected from units selected via purposive sampling 12
Risks associated with LC 338 survey respondents - 116 (34%) reported sustaining at least one injury More than one injury = 194 injury records Mean self-reported loads were 29.5 kg (SD=13.6 kg) or 35% BW (SD=12%) Risks Associated with LC Injuries 13
Risks Associated with LC Injuries 50 45 Number of Self-Reported Injuries 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Head Shoulder Arms - Lower Arms - Upper Back - Upper Back - Lower Abdomen Hip Leg - Upper Leg - Lower Ankle Foot Body Site Risks Associated with LC 39% Bones & Joints 36% Tendons & Muscles 15% Ligaments 4% Skin 14
Risks Associated with LC 14% 28% 38% Risks associated with Load Carriage 404 OHSCAR entries (8% of ARA Inj) 91% Minor Injuries; 1% Incapacity, 7% SPI 15
Injuries Risks Associated with LC 100 90 80 Number of Reported Injuries 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Head Neck and Shoulder Upper Torso Upper Limb Hand Abdomen (Hernia) Back Hip Lower Limb - General Thigh Knee Shins Gastroc Soleus Complex Ankle Foot Knee/Ankle Back/Knee Multiple Systemic Unknown Body Site Injuries Risks Associated with LC Comparison of Reported Load Carriage Injuries Captured By Survey (1999-2010) and By OSCHAR (2009-2010) 70 60 Survey Data OSCHAR Data 50 % Of injuries 40 30 20 10 0 Head Upper limb Back Upper Torso Trunk (Abdominal) Pelvis Lower limb Body Site 16
Risks Associated with LC Injuries Mechanism of Load Carriage Injuries Number of reported injuries (%) Muscular stress 251 62% Fall 85 21% Exposure to environmental heat 28 7% Rubbing and chafing 21 5% Stepping kneeling or sitting on objects 9 2% Unspecified mechanisms of injury 3 1% Contact with moving or stationary object 4 1% Other and multiple mechanisms of injury 2 0% Being trapped between stationary and moving 1 object 0% TOTAL 404 100% Risks Associated with LC Reduced performance -1.24 Mobility Operational Tasks -0.95-0.99-0.96 Marksmanship Grenade Throw Administration -0.80 Attention to Task -2-1 0 1 2 Impact of Load Carriage on Performance 17
Challenge Challenge How to mitigate the effects of load carriage on the soldier? Alter the environment? Reduce the speed? Reduce the duration? Reduce the load? 18
Challenge How to mitigate the effects of load carriage on the soldier? Reduce the load? Risk Management Framework Hierarchy of controls Elimination? Substitution? Engineering? Administration? PPE? Future Research 19
References Drain, J., Orr, R., Attwells, R. & Billing, D. (under review). Load Carriage Capacity of the Dismounted Combatant A Commander s Guide, Defence Science and Technology Organisation: Department of Defence Drain, J., Orr, R., Billing, D., & Rudzki, S. (2010). Human Dimensions of Heavy Load Carriage. Paper presented at the Land Warfare Conference 2010 in Brisbane, Australia 15 19 November 2010. Knapik, J. J., Johnson, R. F., Ang, P., Meiselman, H., Bensel, C. K., Johnson, W., et al. (1993). Road March Performance of Special Operations Soldiers Carrying Various Loads and Load Distributions. T14-93. Military Performance Division. US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, 136. Knapik, J. J., Reynolds, K. L., Duplantis, K. L., & Jones, B. (1995). Friction Blisters: Pathophysiology, Prevention and Treatment. Sports Medicine, 20(3), 136-147. Knapik, J. J., Reynolds, K. L., & Harman, E. (2004). Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med, 169(1), 45-56. Knapik, J. J., Reynolds, K. L., Staab, J., Vogel, J. A., & Jones, B. (1992). Injuries associated with strenuous road marching. Mil Med, 157(2), 64-67. References Lockheed Martin. (2006). MULE / ARV-A(L): Multifunctional Utility / Logistics and Equipment. Vehicle / Armed Robotic Vehicle-Assault (Light) (pp. 2): Lockheen Martin Corporation. Lockheed Martin. (2009). HULC Exoskeletons Enhance Mobility and Increase Endurance (pp. 2): Lockheen Martin Corporation. Orr, R. (2010). The history of the soldier s load, Australian Army Journal, vii(2), 67-88 Orr, R., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2010). Load carriage: Minimising soldier injuries through physical conditioning a narrative review, Journal of Military and Veterans Health, 18(3), 31-38 Orr, R., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2011). Load carriage and its force impact, Australian Defence Journal, 185, 52-63 Orr, R. (2012-Submited), Soldier Load Carriage: A Risk Management Approach. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland 20
21