LOL, when we got the SAWs (2 per squad) they said we didn’t need A gunners. . Never mind I also had a spare barrel bag and an AT4. But I was much younger and the way of the world was “if you can’t carry it, you’re a pussy.”  The mindset of the Big Green Weenie never failed to amaze. I’m sure in all these years nothing has changed.

You know what teaches you load management? When 4 man squads are cut in half because there is these things called GWOT going on and we are understaffed, so the 4 man team becomes just a team leader with a rifle+grenade launcher and a M249 para gunner. it is early GWOT, so lot of extra ammo is carried, like 30 40mm grenades and a whole lot of belts. obviously all electronic, spare parts and gadgets are now split between 2 instead of 4. And you know what? The new hi tech PRC148 takes a lot of paper and a couple days notice to be drawn from the depot, so if you have to make an observation point for some target of opportunity because you got a hint by some village elder the same day you might as well carry the old RV2 or the RV3 backpack radio.
PPE worn all the time obviously.

30 rounds of 40 mike and 400+ linked 556?

And everything else?

My back hurts just thinking about it.

Jack Webb, "The D.I."

https://youtu.be/ODKq0oe0wZU?si=HjqbIagVGPwV2aVh

I think we spent the first month after the invasion into Iraq in MOPP2. That was miserable. I got the worst case of prickly heat on my back.

Nonsense. Right from the WP description of MOPP gear

Pardon, by PPE i meant Armor and Helmet. I never had to wear NBC suit nad gas mask except in training.
m249 gunner individual ammo loadout was on paper 800 rounds (was it a NATO thing maybe?), but among all the items spread between the team extra belts were the less hated things to carry.

I'm tightening up the mag pouches a bit.  You can now still SQUEEZE in that 3rd AK mag, but it's tight.  You can still fit in 3 x pmags easily though.

Yea I know the weight of carrying AK mags - I started out my rifle mag carrying when I got my first AK and got some ALICE mag pouches designed for AK magazines.  Swapped out the M-16 pouches I had on my ALICE gear that I'd been playing with as a kid, using the M-16 pouches to carry sleeves of .22 ammo.  Spent many a day after that larping through the mountains behind my house carrying a set of ALICE gear and a bunch of AK magazines.

I've got a friend who's kid was a SAW gunner in one of our light infantry units.  He carried over 1,000 rounds of ammo between his gun, gear, and pack.

Found this interesting Australian study from 2011 (data gathered in 2006 from 65 soldiers so not a definitive one).

some interesting points to evaluate, expecially the "maximum load" being presented as a variable value.

note that they use "chest webbing" referring to vest/FLC type items, while for chest rigs they use "battle bra".

https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/documents/DSTO-TN-1051.pdf

I don't think much has changed since Roman times.  They are always trying to load us up with all manner of shit.  

The MOPP shit was particularly unpleasant.  Especially since nobody thought you would survive that shit anyway.

SAWs are wonderful things, but then take much ammo to be wonderful.    

Ditto anything anti-tank.

And now drones as well.

There's a reason why they recruit 18 year olds.  You're old enough to carry all this shit, and young enough not to know better.

Lmao.... Facts.

There's a reason why they recruit 18 year olds.  You're old enough to carry all this shit, and young enough not to know better.

AND, the thought of us dying never entered our heads. It was always going to be "The other Guy" that was going to get hit.

Interesting.  Here are some specifics I found interesting.

Over half the troops in the study used a non-issued pack, unless they were ordered not to.  And almost all those packs ended up being external frame packs.

A decent number of troops modified their packs, either issued or bought, with the most common customization being ADDING an external frame.

2/3rds did not have a belt at all, and only half of the rest actually used the belt.  Another study said that only 6% ever used a belt.

Mechanized troops said that smaller packs were preferred.  

Almost all the troops used (or would use if allowed to) non-issued load bearing gear of some kind.

About half used belt kit (or would use belt kit), though some used it in conjunction with a chest rig too.  This was mirrored by another study done in Australia.

Most of the troops modified or customized their gear, with the most popular additions being - 6 point harnesses and padded hip belts.

The mech troops said they didn't like the belt kit.  So that probably skewed the results away from belt kit.  ie, most of the foot-based troops used belt kit, while most of the mech guys didn't.

I found the following section interesting:

"This survey identified that only one in six soldiers wore the pack belt. Many of those who
didn’t wear the pack belt commented that the belt took too long to remove and sometimes
was in the way of their webbing. However, the pack belt is a significant ergonomic aide to
the soldier. The belt helps secure the load from moving and helps transfer some of the load
from the shoulders to the hip (Knapik et al. 2004) which is beneficial to the soldier. There is
a need to develop a pack belt that soldiers will wear, either as a single replacement item
(e.g. with a quick release buckle) or as part of an integrated load carriage ensemble. There
may also be a need to change soldiers’ perceptions of the pack belt.

There are potential problems with the practice of soldiers buying their own equipment.
Firstly, the kit may look suitable in the store or on the website but non-issued kit has not
been tested and passed by the Army’s Design Authority: the Land Engineering Agency
(LEA). Similarly, no scientific inputs into the design and the materials of the LCE have
been provided by DSTO. Furthermore, there is no support for personally procured
equipment when deployed or in the field training. One possible means to support the
soldiers’ practice of buying their own load carriage kit is to develop a short list of
approved items from which the soldiers can choose the equipment they prefer."

BUT THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT MUH ISSUED GEAR WE GAVE THEM

'Soldiers reported less back pain with external frame packs than the unframed field packs.
No soldier complained of muscle soreness of any type during this review. The main
injuries reported resulted from contact between the LCE and the body. The most common
complaint was rubbing and chaffing. The LCE dug in at various locations and cut the skin,
causing bruising and blisters.

Other issues of discomfort and injury were reported: heat rash was common, as was
numbness of the arms from the constriction/pinching of the nerves in the shoulders. These
observations are regularly reported in the literature (Knapik et al. 2004, Bonner et al. 2007,
and Jaffrey et al. 2008).'

Here's what the report said about what the average soldiers carried for 72 hour operations:

2.5.1 Amount of Water
The majority of soldiers carried two litres of water in their webbing (or Camelback™) and
eight litres in their packs. There was some variation in this, with some carrying more. The
total weight of 10 litres of water is 10 kilograms, plus the weight of the various water
storage containers.

2.5.2 Amount of Ammunition
Typically F89 Gunners carried 800 linked rounds, of which 500 was carried on their
webbing, the rest given to another soldier to carry or (occasionally) in their packs. Total
weight of 800 linked rounds is 10.8 kilograms.
The most common volume of rounds carried by those using the F88 rifle was 210 rounds
(seven magazines). A few Section Commanders plus others carried from one to seven
additional magazines. All ammunition (except perhaps those carrying large additions) was
carried in webbing. Total weight of 210 rounds is 3.5 kilograms.

2.5.3 Amount of Rations
The average amount of rations carried was 3 days’ worth. The majority of soldiers broke
down their ration packs. Typically only one meal and/or snacks was stored in the soldier’s
webbing, the rest was in the pack. When the ration packs are broken down some items are
normally discarded (Forbes-Ewan, 2001). The items discarded are usually done so because
the soldier did not want to eat them, and not specifically because they were considered too
heavy. Combat rations typically weighs 1.8 kg per soldier per day when complete. Patrol
rations (aka ‘dehyd’ rations) typically weigh 1.1 kg per soldier per day when complete.
Note that water must be carried in addition to the patrol rations to re-hydrate them. Total
weight for three days of combat rations is 5.4 kilograms.

Most soldiers used non-issued sleeping bags, non-issued rain gear, and added a bivy-sack, which wasn't issued.

According to the study, the US Army has an objective to get weight carried down to between 18kg and 22kg, depending on which objective is being referenced.  This is the weight range they are determining would allow soldiers to be combat effective after marches, etc.

The average Australian rifleman is carrying 46kg and MG gunners, 57kg.

Here's an interesting bit.  The 2007 Field Pack isseud is 106L in volume.
1994 Field Pack: 67L
1988 Field Pack: 50L
1969 Field Pack: 32L
WW2 - it isn't listed, but it was even smaller.

The average day pack used these days?  30-45L.


******

My thoughts.

So I've put alot of thought into this over the years.  Spitballing from a non-military background, but doing alot of backpacking and dabbling with various web gear over the years.

In the backpacking world, especially the 'ultralight' community, the 5 biggest weights you carry are food and water (the heaviest by far, especially food when gone for more than 2-3 days).  Then for equipment, it is sleeping system, shelter, and pack.  Yes, you can cut ounces on other gear and cut some decent weight, but your biggest gains come from cutting the above weights.  Food and water you can only cut down so low, and depends on trip and locale.  So that leaves for GEAR, you can cut weight on your pack, sleep system, and shelter.  But there is only so much you can cut there in the end.  Some people go to extremes, and it works in perfect conditions for short periods of time (try carrying 7 days of food in that ultralight frameless pack)

So let's look at the military weights.  You aren't getting combat load weights down to 18-22kg.  So let's be more realistic and aim for 30kg.  The average soldier in Australia is carrying 45-55kg, depending on their role.  This is AFTER they are already leaving behind issued, SOP ordered kit AND swapping in their own purchased items, which overall is making their loadouts less heavy than the issued, unit SOP kit they are supposed to carry.  So they are already lightening their gear with aftermarket stuff.

How do you intend to cut 15-25kg of weight?  The 3 heaviest items are water, food, and ammo.  The average rifleman is already only carrying 210 rounds of ammo.  And they are already given the option of dehydrated rations.  You can cut a bunch of weight from the water category in some terrains, if you allow soldiers to filter / purify their own water.  But cutting their water carrying in half will only save you 5kg.  You need to cut 15kg.  

Even cutting out body armor completely will only save you 6.5-7.5kg (the weight of the various issued Australian body armor systems) - though that would go a long ways in addition to cutting the water in half and allowing troops to resupply themselves.

This is like fixing the US overspending.  The math will not allow you to do it without either drastically raising taxes, or cutting out social security and medicare.  (people will argue this with me.  Those two programs make up over half the of the actual government spending each year.  You have to cut government spending in half to fix our overspending issues.  Math doesn't lie.)

We need to be SERIOUSLY re-thinking the entire concept of infantry load carrying, especially if we are going to be going into a large-scale war at any point.  This will probably require a complete re-thinking of everything from squad / platoon organization, which will make you tweak tactics.  And even going so far as overall military doctrine at the operational level.  Look at what worked for the most successful infantry units during WW2, both foot and motorized / mech.  Then modernize that with modern weapons and gear advancements.  Realizing that the military support structure is going to have to be changed up to support these infantry units in the field long-term.  

One thing in specific I'd consider looking at would be the late war special, ad-hoc German STUG infantry platoons they would un-officially add to the STUG units that were attached to the various divisions.  These were platoon sized infantry, usually the best guys in the division, that would be un-officially attached to the STUG platoon and company sized attachments that acted as armored support for the German infantry units.  Part mech, part foot, part stormtrooper, used both in providing infantry support to the STUGs, but also used to assault specific hard targets with the STUGs in support of them.  These were some of the first units to acquire STG-44's, even if the rest of the division didn't have any.  An early version of the modern tactics being used in Ukraine and the obvious offshoot of the late war WW1 Stormtrooper tactics, but with the addition of armor and mech.

Even these units wore stripped down gear loads, even on the Eastern front.  Look at the German infantry loads they carried.  Even with heavy canvas and wool and all-steel and wood materials used in their gear and weapons, their loads were closer to what the optimal weight should be.  They HEAVILY depended on the battalion, regiment, and division support elements to keep their weight down.  Same in all the militaries.  

Or just skip all that noise and get on with creating small personal fusion power stations and mech suits.  Power armor baby!

Just to say, not simple armor, but Beryl armor. (Starship Troopers)

Some simple observations to above comments which do not contradict them:

(1) Troops buying Other-Than-Issued (OTI) gear seldom can tell if the gear is well-made, nor can tell if gear is NIR compliant.  Price point is often a significant factor, with the possible defects of poorly-made/cheap gear following along.  While acknowledging the reluctance/inertia of Big Mil to authorize "Non-standard" gear, a lot of aftermarket gear looks great in the store but fails in the field.  At least the "Issued" gear, despite any shortcomings, has met minimum standards.  That can't be said for a lot of poorly-made aftermarket gear.

(2) Backpackers, especially long-distance backpackers, always configure their route to take advantage of existing water supplies and have on-hand means to treat such water.  Soldiers/Marines may not have such latitude, nor such capabilities for water treatment.

Almost all the troops that bought aftermarket gear bought Platytac stuff according to the study.  That's the gucci Aussie company.

To quote Star Wars…….Almost there.







I knew this was going to be the hardest part, and boy was I right.  Broke two needles.  I prayed that the last one I had on hand would last. Glad it did.  Need to get more ASAP. The stitching on the inside was ugly as all hell. The tape helped, but only somewhat. Luckily it won’t be seen.  Gotta finish up the harness and lid.  Hopefully will be done by next week. Then a quick field test. Fingers crossed…….

I like that you, like Spec-Ops gear, have elected to line the inside of the pack with a "Hi-Vis" light-colored liner.

Overall shape/size reminds me of the USGI M1943 pack.  Updated, of course.  Replica HERE

Since a pack is a "bag of bags", as per longstanding Boy Scout philosophy, I have multiple "bags" within my ruck all marked/labeled/colored with appropriate duct tape and markings on same.

I'm sure that is so, but I'm also sure that other troops bought inferior kit.

Was there any mention of internal framed packs?

30kg = 66#

46kg = 101#

57 = 126#

Looking good man!  I figured it's look better once you get it put together.  Binding tape covers up a multitude of sins, lol.  Like putting up drywall on studded walls.  

I'd go back and put in a 2nd line of stitching on the binding tape, especially or at least on the top edge, around the opening.  

I've been thinking about making a copy of the Hill People Gear Umlindi pack (which I quite like), but with a cinch top opening instead of the zipper one, with something like one of the crossfire lids on top.  And with external pockets on the sides and back, similar to the Becker Patrol pack, ALICE, etc.

Oh I believe it.  There's always that one dude rocking Condor stuff.

Not specifically.  I know that only something like 6 of the troops were NOT using external frame packs.  Though I'm not sure how many of those ended up being frameless vs. internal.



Yuuuup.

Hey that pack is lookin' good!

Weights n weights.  After all this time, still no good answers.

Switch to .22lr and invent dehydrated water?

For real. The two things you can’t be without are the densest things you carry.

Well yeah that's one approach.  I knew an old SF hand who carried an old ruger .22 and a brick of ammo in his E&E kit.  He could last indefinitely with that.

If you can "prepare the battlespace", you should be pre-positioning ammo n stuff.  And, have water re-supply points.  And have friendlies who will provide aid.  And then make plans for when that all goes to shit.  

Sort of like thru-hikers who mail re-supplies to themselves at post offices along the trail.

An interesting take on a possible option for a commanders pouch.  Yeah it’s a lot of Velcro, and it will degrade over time, but it should be able to tighten the pouch up well so it doesn’t sag.

I'm lucky to live in the Appalachian Mountains - pretty much every valley has some place you can obtain water from.

Amazing, I feel like there is a point in every tactical gear guy's journey when he just has to start customizing his stuff and frankly with as many gear manufactures as there are you wouldn't think that would be necessary.

I'm kind of at that point where I see gear and it just falls short of what I want.  Makes you appreciate that saying the "necessity is the mother of invention."

That's one of the reasons I'm starting to sew and starting to sell stuff.  I have been looking at getting a really nice set of belt kit to replace my ALICE set that's still floating around for YEARS now.  But having run ALICE kit as a kid, I knew there were issues there - and everyone who made gear kept making the same mistakes (Velocity and their thin belt, Nixyworks and their huge buttpack, almost all the triple mag pouches either not covering the magazines or they didn't have any closure other than velcro, etc.

And it was soooo expensive to order kit from England.  

I picked up some SORD stuff, but they had issues (the harness didn't have a mesh back panel for instance) and started piecing together gear from various places to complete a reasonable priced belt kit.

Then I decided to start to sew my own, which is going to end up creating the most expensive belt kit ever made, as I have at this point thousands of dollars invested in sewing machines, materials, prototypes, etc.  Which then led me to putting together belt kits to sell so I can pay back my investment.

With drones, remotely flying in and dropping resupply pallets brings about its own set of opsec issues, could probably do that with pre-programmed flight plans, though. Would work great if the ops are planned out well, and nothing goes wrong.

Our ancestors used beasts of burden to carry weight, from oxen to draft horses to pack mules. There's almost certainly a way to replicate that with modern technology. IIRC, DARPA was experimenting with pack robots to carry shit for the squad. No idea how that's going.

Finally, there's always the old "Why walk when you can ride?" line of thought. Since powered exoskeletons are probably another 50 years out, I'm thinking something akin to the German Wiesel 1, a tracked all-terrain weapons platform with enough armor to render small arms ineffective. The smaller the better, no more than a 2-man crew, driver and shooter.

Even a simple quad with a small trailer to load supplies on would go a LONG ways in helping resupply infantry.  I actually can see a good use for electric bikes, small dirt bikes that are near silent that are electric, being used to haul supplies even.  One per squad would let them carry ALOT of the support gear and allow them to use it as scout, messenger, etc.

Pack mule 2.0

Quick update…..it’s done!

I loaded it up with some odds and ends (ended up weighing 18 pounds) and wore it when I walked to dog yesterday. It’s about a mile walk. I did have to make a couple stops adjust the shoulder harness height. Carried well. Not sure if I was being overly picky, but I wasn’t expecting an earth shattering performance rolling my own.  Have a busy weekend. Plan on loading it up more and taking it on a hike in conjunction with my home grown PLCE on Monday. Will follow up with pics then.

Just had some excellent conversations with a 25-year Canadian Army vet.  This guy was a mustang, so he was both enlisted and officer.  And wore Canadian style PLCE for much of that time.  He had some very interesting alternatives to what you are hearing from the Brit influencers on line.  Which may or may not apply to you.  

First, the basics, for those that haven't been paying attention, or new to the thread.  The jungle kit, as we have been referring to it, or to him, the dismounted patrolling kit, is optimized for foot patrolling, usually in rural areas, if not outright forests and mountains.  In this regard, it still needs to be workable for truck transportation, but only for the initial leg to the jump off point; from there it's understood you will be legging it until the operation is over, or you're rotated to the rear for rest and re-fit.  So the rig itself emphasizes carrying the load on the hips, instead of the torso.  If BA is worn, it is stand-alone, so it can be worn under various clothing layers, especially in extreme cold (go figure, eh?).

With this in mind, what would he carry, or ask his lads to carry.  Well, unlike the Brits, he feels the belt kit should be a fighting load out.  Therefore he would carry ammo, frags, smoke, IFAK, radio, day/night optics, etc, but other than one canteen, no sustainments.  And keep in mind this a light infantry mind-set, where a plt/coy/Bn is taking an objective.  To his way of thinking, why carry all that stuff to assault the objective?  And it does have merit so I'm sharing it with you here.  Instead, the sustainment's could be carried in a smaller pack (around 40L), which would be separated from the main pack system (sort of like the Jarhead FIBLE system).  

Speaking of the main pack, the Canadian system consists of a main frameset, a main pack (as mentioned above), and a "valise", which is a big bag to carry your sleep system, clothing, shelter, etc.  Or at least it did back then, but I think they have something very similar today.  The concept is to have a main or assault/patrol pack that can be separated from a larger sustainment bag, and frame to hang it all on.  As you can see, this concept is very much like what the US SOP has been.  It's just that we haven't practiced it much for a long time.  

And again, this from the perspective of a light infantry officer, who has at least some infrastructure to support him.   They can probably depend on someone else to bring their bags up, and/or re-supply them.  And perhaps catch a ride to the next jump-off point.  But will soon again be dismounted infantry.  So if you are active duty, and are considering what the next conflict might look like, here is one scenario to consider.  

Now where does that leave us, as small units patrolling our own areas.  Or as reserve or active guys, in an admin scenario, where the likelihood of contact is low.  This is where the Brit concept shines, IMHO.  Now in all fairness, there are several kit makers in Old Blighty that offer rigs with IFAK's and other pouches on them (Kit Monster, Dixies, Dragon, even JJ's) in lieu of the traditional layout.  So for those that are thinking this way (as Prepared Pathfinder), you can carry other stuff in sustainment pouches.  But, as a small unit, operating independently of any supporting force, the option of having a belt kit, with both fighting and sustainment load out still has it's merits.  

But this does present an option that I wanted to share with you.  You could run sustainment in a smaller assault type pack, in conjunction with a belt kit, which leaves more room for optics, comms, pyro, etc. on the belt line.  Or perhaps a small panel on the back of the yoke; sort of a carry-over from the panels on the rear plates.  I am going to be experimenting with this, to see if I can design a rear panel, that will nestle into the hollow of the pack frame, instead of BA.  

So yeah just some thoughts for your consideration.

The more perspectives, the better.

It definitely reinforces the fact that only you, and your unique situation, should dictate what you are doing about your gear.

Short patrols or long?
Vehicles or no?
Belt kit only or belt plus pack?
Belt kit fighting load centric, or a mix of business and sustainment?
If a mix, what percentage? (Same for pack)
What's the weather?
If you ditch your pack, will you be able to get it back?

And on and on from the beginning of time until today

In the 2024 US Army there are very few examples of stripped-down Storm Troopers to conduct direct-action Blitzkrieg.

The average Ranger Regiment Soldier carries his individual weapon and basic load, a stripped-down plate carrier with MICH and bare-minimum go-fast PPE, stacking on a portable radio and goggles before even considering overnight or specialized equipment stuffed into an assault or three-day pack.

Of course a mounted Soldier's webbing is different than a dismount -- he can leave ALL his non-critical equipment in his vehicle.  The foot-mobile Soldier has to carry all critical mission-required stuff to- and from- the objective, whether immediately needed or not.

In the Cold War H-Series scout platoon MTOE both my (platoon leader's) and platoon sergeant's jeeps had trailers to move scout-sniper rucks and replenish-sustain supply to them once halted.  For many missions they weren't burdened with huge ALICE loads, which helped them traverse hills and ridges.

Those little jeeps are gone, replaced by side-by-sides and the Infantry Chevy pickup -- and yet the Soldier is still carrying ignorant loads.

This (2024):



replaces these (1944 - 1970, while the Koreans still produce new ones, with an optional turbo diesel):


Attached File

Hers a great video showing want Rangers are currently carrying on their kit for an Assault.

I was about to complain about no pictures until the last line   :-D  

Now wait until you come up with a bunch of changes you want to make.  Then late one night you are sitting on rockywoods webpage putting in another order for materials to make Pack v2.0

Then you wake up the next morning, and realize you have a problem.  The first part of the solution is, of course, admitting you have a problem.....

I'm going to point back to my comments about looking at what was done during WW2, especially with German troops.  Very similar to what you mentioned with the Canadian guy - they carried a minimal combat load, and would drop their small packs they carried with them (basically a shelter half, blanket, food, and a few random bits) and enter combat with ammo, bayonet, and a canteen.  Sometimes they would keep a 'bread bag' with them with some food.  They depended on the military support system for their long-term sustainment.  

As for the rear panel, I don't think you will get enough in there to make it worthwhile, especially since it will mess with the breathability that gap allows.  I think you will be better served with a truly minimal pack setup that allows for carry of a couple canteens, a 50oz water bladder, 3 to 6 rifle magazines or a SAW pouch, poncho, woobie, etc.  Make it thin and design it to ride on the pack like a compression panel with fastex quick-disconnect buckles.  

Below is a picture of a Hill People Gear Tarahumara pack docked to another pack.  Not specifically what I'm wanting, but it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.

You might even get away designing the pack to replace the top lid of a Crossfire pack, or mate in with a minimalist single layer 'lid flap' that stays on the pack when you take the assault pack off, so that the single layer 'lid' protects the cinch area.  

Keep it minimalist.  40L is way too big for this.  Think water bladder pack, with 2 canteens and some magazines, and enough room to stuff a poncho and woobie and a stripped down MRE in.  And make it have a decent harness.  The HPG harness works great with this kind of carry.

You might consider putting a single aluminum stay built into the back of the pack for rigidity and helping distribute that weight in addition to a frame sheet.

We need to bring back cheap, simple, reliable small jeeps again.  They aren't for combat, they aren't for moving stuff around in an insurgency zone.  They are there for general purpose transportation around base in peacetime, and for supply support for infantry and such in a large scale war.

Look at Ukraine - they are using a ton of civilian pickup trucks in this role.  They are having a problem keeping them maintained too, as they aren't designed for the kind of stuff they are being put through + lack of standardization for spare parts.

Even just a couple jeeps at the company level for supply and such would go a LONG ways towards helping things.  From what I remember, most light infantry units have some hummers attached to them - but those are mostly for C3 if I remember right.

If we are talking about the prepared citizen concept, I think your most important sustainment needs to be on your person or in the belt kit. The belt kit is probably the last thing you are going to ditch if necessary, so keeping what you need in it is a good idea. For those of us not in a professional army, there is no support or resupply.

I like the idea of a small pack to go with it. I think piggybacking it on the harness could be nice if it rides well, since it would avoid stacking too many layers of shoulder straps. Something like the Kifaru E&E bag would work well. I've always wanted to pick up one of those, but the price is a little high for what it is.

I can certainly agree with this sentiment. For the most part, we're on our own. Unless you are part of a militia type element. Even then, if the shit has REALLY hit the fan, how many members are going to resort to their own version of plan Z?

Now as I'm dissecting that in my head, probably would be good protocol to carry one of those small cheap flags (of your origin, or allegiance) in your kit. More than likely you would encounter someone of like minded persuasion, and maybe that could keep you from getting clapped after noticing eachother? Spitballing here

That's why camo choices are important.

I can agree, to a point. What if you are wearing m81 and spot a fella in the distance wearing desert night cam? Obviously, neither are in active military use (that I know anyways) but does he know that? Does he think m81 is Chinese? Like I said, spitballing. I can be proven wrong very easily, I'm sure.

Oh, totally agree.  However, the key is not looking like the major force(s) in the area of operation.  But like you said, you won't be able to avoid all confusion.

Ok guys.  So I finally got the last one done.  If I have time tomorrow to take pictures, I'll be posting 9 sets of belt kit with British surplus pouches, permanently sewn onto a modern padded belt.  Hopefully will have it up sometime tomorrow night.  I'll also be posting a full set of ALICE webbing and another set of ALICE webbing, but with mag pouches designed for AK-47 magazines.  Finally get some budget kits out there.

Next I'll be working on buttpacks and a few sets of belt kit with buttpacks.

Sounds good man; can't wait to see it.

Yeah I am really thinking hard on the "assault" pack combined with larger sustainment pack concept.  Either day pack lid, or piggy-back.  

Yesterday, had a good conversation with my SF buddy.  He reminded me of several things.  In the initial stages of an insurgency, you might see small scale, pin-prick raids, in which the participants would be pretty much self-sufficient.  But as the insurgency picked up steam, larger units might be organized, and some level of support might be available.  So depending on what phase you happen to be in, you could be totally on your own, but then you could end up in a fairly well organized unit, of company size, or larger.  

When my buddy did this mission, for-real, he typically advised a Bn-sized unit, but it started out in building up companies.  One time he advised an entire Rgt.  But that's a story for another time.  

Not advocating anything here, simply pointing out possibilities, and what the ramifications of them might be, concerning support, and support equipment.  

I have heard many comments about what level of expertise and manpower you might expect in any given area.  And anyone's guess is as good as mine, but I am hopeful that there may be a cadre of skilled individuals who may come into the fore in this regard.  

And as we have been discussing, it's logistics that will make or break the deal.  It's uncanny how several individuals here, many with zero formal training, have reached that conclusion.  This gives me hope for the future.

Not that my opinion has any gravitas, but I always considered the belt-mounted rig, as discussed in this thread, as a rig which must be compatible with some sort of "appropriate" back pack.

Perhaps the Brit style of large pouches (rockets) side-attached to the main pack, but capable of independent use when attached to each other and an appropriate shoulder harness might be advantageous.  After all, the Brits apparently designed the large pack + "rockets" in conjunction with this sort of rig.

I've always been skeptical of attaching "parasite" packs to the dorsal side of main pack, due to adverse center-of-gravity issues.  Likewise, attaching a parasite pack to the top of the main pack often restricts head movement of user, particularly when shooting prone.

Perhaps some other configuration of "main pack+auxiliary pack" should be investigated.  Perhaps a large-ish conventional pack, which could be easily doffed, on top, plus a smaller, lower pack on bottom. Together they would ride on the "shelf" provided by the "Jungle rig".

I'm sure there are other alternatives.