http://snipurl.com/sm3m Trenchcoat_Warrior wrote: This is not an attempt to drag the well-aired pro and con for women in the front lines but rather the way in which the modern soldier is loaded. The loads carried over distance in the time taken during the yomps and tabbing of the Falklands were awesome. There is some suggestion from casual reading that these weights are gradually becoming commonplace. There is some research here from an Australian source as to loads carried by soldiers. http://snipurl.com/sm3s. The finding that a civilian labourer can effectively carry about 80 pounds is significant. We live in a world where almost everything is being made smaller, lighter, more effective and convenient than yesterdays model. I am told that the computer power in my PDA makes Sputnik look like a saucepan lid Frisbee. I used to be a Long Distance Walker and the extremes to which some people went to reduce weight and space take-up were often amusing. Weapons and munitions are becoming more efficient so should be easing the burden. So, why are infantry carrying these oppressive weights? Is there a real need or is it because their air resources are insufficient? OK â trained infantry can do it but would they not be more effective going into combat at the end of a yomp/tab if they had humped â say â fifty pounds rather than 150 pounds.