Are there any real benefits to be had from running/ walking with plates on for example?
Get used to the weight. Good test to see if you're in shape enough to actually use your gear.
What is conditioning?
>>29323923
My dad says that body armour doesn't give much of an advantage because it slows you down making you easier to hit. He also said it tended to make his troops take more risks. Maybe he's right because there isn't a massive difference between the percentage casualty rates of Vietnam and Iraq.
>>29323923
Being able to run further, faster and longer than any of those cosplayers in the gear-queer thread. Being able to use your weapon system with a higher level of fatigue over those that don't train. Same reason everybody trains.
I feel like it's the less dedicated man's alternative to a weighted vest
Enjoy blowing our your ankles.
Running with weight on is fucking retarded.
>>29323961
Nigga what??
Nam-50,000 dead in ten years of war
Iraq/Afghanistan- about 5000 dead in close to 15 years of war
Your dad is either full of shit or you are grossly misquoting him. We ran plenty fast when we had to in Iraq.
Hodji cant shoot for shit anyway so being slow wouldnt matter
And finally- do you prefer dying or gettngthe wind knocked out of you?
>Mfw I read your post
Yes train in your gear. If you are going to use it, you need to be ABLE to use it.
>>29323923
Weighted walks with armor/rucks can be useful to ensure they are being worn and adjusted to the body properly. A walking pace ruck/armor hike can provide some conditioning and mental preparation. I think that running with weights is absolutely retarded as a means of normal exercise. It has many risks and not much benefit. It's used by young guys to show off how tough they are, but as far as I'm concerned, no matter how motivated you are, you can't condition cartilage. I've seen too many guys fall to permanent hip/knee/back/shoulder injuries from ruck runs. You can get the same kind of conditioning both more effectively and more safely from other exercise.
Plate carriers are useful to help with pullups, bleacher dips, and anything else relying on body weight though.
>>29323961
Your dad is a 'tard and you're a 'tard for giving a secondhand opinion.
>>29323961
no the other 60lbs of gear does that and confidence is great for a military that emphasises aggression
>>29324036
those are also vastly different conflicts with a shitload of other advancements. body armor saves guys for sure but comparing those two are a joke
Any excessive you do with s plate would be better served in s weight vest with 2x weight.
>>29324335
Derp excercises*
>>29324036
There's 8% difference in the casualty rate. Is that really all due to body armour? I don't think so seeing as you had less technology back then and were fighting a better trained army which is more likely to be the real reason behind the 8% difference. Add into the fact that most battlefield caualties come from explosives, be it artillery or IEDs, body armour isn't worth the money. Troops did fine for years without it.
By training carrying the weight you will actually be carrying you won't suddenly be surprised at how hard it is to run in them when you do wear them
>>29323934
First post. There you have it. Quite simple, really. If you're going to use it, practice with it.
Yeah, spinal contusions.
you get used to the extra weight, it's basically endurance training. we did a kit run every week. timed 5 mile run in full kit that included adding rocks in our pouches to simulate actual weight of ammo, radios, batteries, etc. The thing is now a days, everybody gets body armor the size of their shirts. that's what weighs them down adn heavily restricts their movement(crouching, bending, turning, etc). I wear a medium blouse and a small carrier. also, nobody fits them correctly anymore from what I've seen.
>>29324809
>fact that most battlefield caualties come from explosives, be it artillery or IEDs, body armour isn't worth the money
>most battlefield casualties come from explosives
>because many small arms are stopped by body armor now
>protecting the thorax from fragmentation coming off explosives isn't worth the money
>neither is minimizing the casualty rate from small arms fire
>>29324809
Where are you getting this 8% difference from? Im not a math guy but 50,000 KIA seems to be much larger than 5000KIA... also one of the reasons the enemy resorts to almost exclusively using IEDs is because shooting us is ineffective. Even in massed attacks our casualties are extremely light. Usually limited to wounds on extremeties.
>>29324316
>vastly different conflicts
Which is why my mind is blown he even made a comparison.
