Future Force Warrior, Engineering Design Event Number 4 

by Daniel D. Turner, Christian B. Carstens, and Joseph Torre 

ARL-TR-3626 October 2005 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

DESTRUCTION NOTICE—Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do no return it to 

the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-3626 October 2005 

Future Force Warrior, Engineering Design Event Number 4 

Daniel D. Turner and Christian B. Carstens 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Joseph Torre 

John H. Northrop Associates 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, 

to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 October 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 

 Virtual Environment Study of Sensor Mix Effects on Ground Soldiers’ 

 Situational Awareness 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716A 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 Daniel D. Turner and Christian B. Carstens (both of ARL); 

 Joseph Torre (JHNA) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3626

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory conducted an experiment to evaluate the form, fit, 

and user acceptance of the Future Force Warrior (FFW) body systems and headgear system ensembles (without functional electronics). The 

ensembles included new components and the addition of leader and Soldier variations. They were evaluated in the context of dismounted 

Infantry tactical activities. Additionally, the experiment investigated the form, fit, and comfort, of a chemical and biological (CB) overgarment with a functional personal air ventilation system (PAVS) and a functional personal air-purifying respirator (PAPR). The experiment 

was executed from 9 to 13 May 2005, with one Infantry squad as participants. Soldiers received familiarization training on the prototype 

equipment. The exercises included an overland open terrain environment, an urban warfare environment, and an individual movement 

techniques course. 

Results indicated that the Soldiers liked many aspects of the FFW equipment and concepts; however, some refinements are needed to improve 

the overall comfort of the components and further human factors evaluations are required. During the event, it became apparent that proper 

sizing of the chassis and ballistic belt will be critical to the overall success of the FFW program. The FFW chassis allowed the Soldier 

increased flexibility in “customizing” his equipment for mission-specific tasks. The Soldiers liked the ballistic belt and often used it to carry 

additional equipment. The Soldiers accepted the “up-armor” items for specific mission scenarios, but they almost universally disliked the neck 

“up armor” option. The Soldiers felt the CB over-garment and two ventilation systems (PAVS and PAPR) provided a significant improvement 

over current gear. The ventilation systems reduced Soldier mobility and capabilities; however, the Soldiers felt the improved comfort was well 

worth the extra weight and reduction in capabilities. Two life sign detection system (LSDS) configurations were evaluated, and the consensus 

was that a combination of the two systems (strap system of the LSDS 1-C plus the Hidalgo monitoring device) will provide the most 

comfortable configuration. Two variations of design cycle III helmets were evaluated. The leader variation was very well received by the 

Soldiers who felt the added weight was not significant, considering the comfort of the helmet and the potential of added capabilities. The 

Soldier variation had some initial heat and perspiration issues which engineers appeared to have solved during the evaluation. 

Overall, the FFW ensembles need human factors refinements in order to meet comfort and fit issues. Future evaluations need to focus on the 

increased capabilities offered by functional systems and need to be conducted with functional electronics. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 body armor; chemical-biological ensemble; future force warrior; future helmets; up armor 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Daniel D. Turner 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT 

SAR 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

185 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 706-545-5634 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures vi

List of Tables viii

Acknowledgments xi

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 3

1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................3 

1.1.1 Previous FFW Evaluations..................................................................................3 

1.1.2 FFW Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) ...............................................................3 

1.1.3 Phases ..................................................................................................................4

1.1.4 Participants ..........................................................................................................4 

1.1.5 Apparatus.............................................................................................................4 

1.2 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................11 

1.2.1 Chassis Loads ....................................................................................................11 

1.2.2 Ammunition Access ..........................................................................................11 

1.2.3 Chassis Components..........................................................................................11 

1.2.4 CB Gear.............................................................................................................12 

1.2.5 CB and Weapons Firing Interaction..................................................................12 

1.2.6 Helmets and Weapons Firing Interaction..........................................................12 

1.2.7 Design Cycle III Helmets ..................................................................................12 

1.2.8 LSDS .................................................................................................................12 

2. Methodology 12

2.1 Demographics and Anthropometrics.............................................................................12 

2.2 Training/Fitting: Day 1.................................................................................................13

2.2.1 Training .............................................................................................................13 

2.2.2 Fitting ................................................................................................................13

2.3 Movement to Contact: Days 2 and 4............................................................................13 

2.4 MOUT: Day 3 ..............................................................................................................17 

2.4.1 Room Clearing ..................................................................................................17 

2.4.2 Loft Clearing .....................................................................................................17 

2.4.3 Excursion...........................................................................................................18 

2.5 IMT Course: Day 5.......................................................................................................18
iv 

2.6 Side Experiments...........................................................................................................19 

2.6.1 Breaches: Day 3................................................................................................19 

2.6.2 M203 Side Event: Day 5 ..................................................................................20 

2.7 After-Action Reviews (AARs)......................................................................................20 

3. Results 21

3.1 Demographics and Anthropometrics (Day 1) ...............................................................21 

3.2 Training and Fitting: Day 1..........................................................................................23 

3.3 Movement to Contact: Days 2 and 4............................................................................24 

3.3.1 Movement to Contact: Day 2, General Results................................................24 

3.3.2 Day 2, Specific Results .....................................................................................27 

3.3.3 Day 2, FFW Helmet Assembly Results.............................................................37 

3.3.4 Comparison of FFW and Baseline Equipment, Day 2 ......................................38 

3.3.5 Subject Matter Expert (SME) Observations......................................................40 

3.3.6 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics, Day 2, Movement to Contact ................41 

3.3.7 Movement to Contact, Day 4, Specific Results................................................42 

3.3.8 Comparison of FFW and Baseline Equipment, Day 4 ......................................47 

3.3.9 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics, Day 4 Movement to Contact .................49 

3.4 MOUT Operations, Day 3.............................................................................................52 

3.4.1 MOUT Operations, Room Clearing, Day 3 ......................................................52 

3.4.2 Specific Results, Day 3 .....................................................................................54 

3.4.3 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics: Room Clearing .....................................61 

3.4.4 FFW Helmet Assembly .....................................................................................63 

3.4.5 Room Excursion................................................................................................63 

3.4.6 MOUT Operations, Loft Clearing, Day 3 .........................................................65 

3.4.7 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics: Loft Clearing........................................68 

3.5 IMT and CB Event ........................................................................................................71 

3.5.1 IMT and CB Activities......................................................................................71 

3.5.2 Specific Results, Day 5 .....................................................................................73 

3.6 Side Experiment: Day 5, Cross Country.................................................................79 

3.6.1 Grenadier’s Cross-Country Movement .............................................................79 

3.7 Additional Information ............................................................................................80 

4. Discussion 80

4.1 Chassis Loads................................................................................................................80 

4.1.1 Uniform .............................................................................................................80 

4.1.2 Chassis...............................................................................................................80 

4.1.3 Ballistic Belt ......................................................................................................82 

4.2 Ammunition Accessibility.............................................................................................82 
v 

4.3 Chassis Components .....................................................................................................82 

4.4 CB Gear.........................................................................................................................83 

4.5 CB and Weapons Firing Interaction..............................................................................84 

4.6 Helmets and Weapons Firing Interaction......................................................................84 

4.7 Design Cycle III Helmets..............................................................................................84 

4.8 LSDS .............................................................................................................................84 

4.9 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................85 

5. Recommendations 85

5.1 Uniform .........................................................................................................................85 

5.2 Chassis...........................................................................................................................85 

5.3 Ballistic Belt..................................................................................................................86 

5.4 Ammunition Accessibility.............................................................................................86 

5.5 Chassis Components .....................................................................................................86 

5.6 CB Gear.........................................................................................................................86 

5.7 Design Cycle III Helmets..............................................................................................86 

5.8 LSDS .............................................................................................................................86 

6. References 87

Appendix A. Demographics and Anthropometrics 88

Appendix B. Training and Fitting 93

Appendix C. Movement to Contact, Days 2 and 4 95

Appendix D. MOUT Activities 117

Appendix E. Individual Movement Technique Course and CB 145

Appendix F. Soldier and Equipment Weights 153

Appendix G. Miscellaneous 163

Abbreviations and Acronyms 169 

Distribution List 171 
vi 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Body systems, leader variation........................................................................................5 

Figure 2. Body systems, Soldier variation......................................................................................6 

Figure 3. CB SPM garment with JSGPM (XM50)..... ....................................................................7 

Figure 4. PAVS and PAPR (belt) and PAVS hip inlet ...................................................................7 

Figure 5. PAVS and PAPR (leg) and PAVS abdomen inlet...........................................................8 

Figure 6. FFW design cycle III (leader)..........................................................................................9 

Figure 7. FFW design cycle III (Soldier)........................................................................................9 

Figure 8. WPSM health hub..........................................................................................................10 

Figure 9. LSDS 1-C. .....................................................................................................................10 

Figure 10. LSDS Hidalgo (front and back)...................................................................................11 

Figure 11. Movement-to-contact routes........................................................................................14 

Figure 12. Mock ammunition. ......................................................................................................16 

Figure 13. Assault: Kunzig range. ...............................................................................................16 

Figure 14. Woodland IMT course layout......................................................................................19 

Figure 15. Breaching holes. ..........................................................................................................20 

Figure 16. Cross-country course...................................................................................................20 

Figure 17. Soldier with long waist................................................................................................22 

Figure 18. Soldiers donning gear..................................................................................................25 

Figure 19. Soldier wearing suspenders. ........................................................................................26 

Figure 20. Soldier: no ballistic belt with leg panels.....................................................................27 

Figure 21. Stock lock. ...................................................................................................................31 

Figure 22. Shoulder weapons attachment. ....................................................................................32 

Figure 23. “Up” armor. .................................................................................................................33 

Figure 24. FFW basic chassis and ballistic belt............................................................................34 

Figure 25. Chassis latching system...............................................................................................36 

Figure 26. Skydex impact liner.....................................................................................................37 

Figure 27. Brock impact liner. ......................................................................................................38 

Figure 28. Broken connector.........................................................................................................47 

Figure 29. Soldiers’ ratings of FFW and effects of movement.....................................................51 

Figure 30. Soldiers’ ratings of baseline and effects of movement................................................51 
vii 

Figure 31. Team leaders and grenadiers (baseline and FFW). .....................................................52 

Figure 32. Riflemen and SAW gunners (baseline and FFW). ......................................................53 

Figure 33. Team leader and grenadier (“up” armor).....................................................................53 

Figure 34. Rifleman and SAW gunner (“up” armor)....................................................................54 

Figure 35. Soldier entering building. ............................................................................................55 

Figure 36. Neck-up armor, head movement. ................................................................................56 

Figure 37. Fire team, wall stack....................................................................................................59 

Figure 38. Drop bag. .....................................................................................................................59 

Figure 39. Neck-up armor.............................................................................................................60 

Figure 40. Fire team clearing loft. ................................................................................................65 

Figure 41. PAVS, medium (hip inlet), belt and leg mounts. ........................................................71 

Figure 42. PAVS, large (abdomen inlet), belt and leg mounts.....................................................72 

Figure 43. PAVS and PAPR belt mount.......................................................................................72 

Figure 44. PAVS and PAPR leg mount........................................................................................73 

Figure 45. Soldier, magazine replacement....................................................................................76

Figure 46. Torn CB garment.........................................................................................................78 

Figure 47. Loose PAPR hose........................................................................................................79 
viii 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Experiment event schedule. ............................................................................................12 

Table 2. Route and equipment matrix...........................................................................................13 

Table 3. Day 4 movement to contact (what they wore)................................................................15 

Table 4. MOUT operations matrix................................................................................................17 

Table 5. IMT course matrix. .........................................................................................................18 

Table 6. Anthropometric measurements (percentile)....................................................................22 

Table 7. Comparison of anthropometric measures with 1998 Army sample. ..............................22 

Table 8. Mean response to training and fitting questions. ............................................................23 

Table 9. Typical weight differences (FFW versus baseline). .......................................................24 

Table 10. Mean responses to task completion. .............................................................................28 

Table 11. Mean responses to problem areas encountered.............................................................29 

Table 12. Mean response to pain levels........................................................................................30 

Table 13. Soldiers’ responses for shoulder-up armor. ..................................................................34 

Table 14. Soldiers’ responses for neck-up armor. ........................................................................34 

Table 15. Soldiers’ responses for abdomen-up armor. .................................................................35 

Table 16. Soldiers’ responses for leg-up armor............................................................................35 

Table 17. Categorization of the questions.....................................................................................38 

Table 18. Items of strong preference for the FFW ensemble. ......................................................39 

Table 19. Items of moderate preference for the FFW ensemble...................................................39 

Table 20. Items with no clear preference......................................................................................39 

Table 21. Items with moderate preference for baseline................................................................39 

Table 22. Items with strong preference for baseline.....................................................................40 

Table 23. SME observations, day 2, morning movement to contact. ...........................................40 

Table 24. SME observations, day 2, afternoon movement to contact. .........................................41 

Table 25. Descriptive statistics, Day 2, Movement to Contact.....................................................42 

Table 26. What the Soldiers wore, day 4......................................................................................43 

Table 27. Mean responses to task completion. .............................................................................44 

Table 28. Mean responses to problem areas encountered.............................................................45 

Table 29. Mean response to pain levels........................................................................................46 

Table 30. Categorization of the questions.....................................................................................47 
ix 

Table 31. Items of moderate preference for the FFW ensemble...................................................48 

Table 32. Items with no clear preference......................................................................................48 

Table 33. Items with moderate preference for baseline................................................................48 

Table 34. Items with strong preference for baseline.....................................................................48 

Table 35. Likert scale questionnaire statistics, day 4, movement to contact................................49 

Table 36. Comparison of FFW gear, days 2 and 4. ......................................................................50 

Table 37. Comparison of baseline gear, days 2 and 4. .................................................................50 

Table 38. Soldiers’ mean response to task completion.................................................................55 

Table 39. Mean responses to problem areas encountered.............................................................57 

Table 40. Summary statistics questionnaire data, room clearing..................................................62 

Table 41. Repeated measures ANOVAs, room clearing questionnaires. .....................................63 

Table 42. FFW configuration for room excursion........................................................................64 

Table 43. Times to enter and exit the loft. ....................................................................................65 

Table 44. Soldiers’ mean responses to ability to complete tasks..................................................66 

Table 45. Soldiers’ mean responses to problem areas encountered..............................................67 

Table 46. Summary statistics questionnaire data, loft clearing. ...................................................69 

Table 47. Repeated measures ANOVAs, loft clearing questionnaires. ........................................70 

Table 48. Ensuing comparisons, “ease of head movement,” loft clearing. ..................................70 

Table 49. Ensuing comparisons, “moving through mouse holes,” loft clearing...........................70 

Table 50. Ensuing comparisons, “ability to conduct reflexive shooting,” loft clearing. ..............71 

Table 51. Ensuing comparisons, “ability to breathe,” loft clearing..............................................71 

Table 52. Descriptive statistics about Soldiers’ responses. ..........................................................74 

Table 53. Items in which the CB plus mask is the favored set of gear.........................................76 

Table 54. Items for which the belt mount is the favored variation..............................................76 

Table 55. Items for which the leg mount has the highest rating. ..................................................77 

Table 56. SME observations, day 5. .............................................................................................78 

Table A-1. Demographics.............................................................................................................89 

Table A-2. Anthropometric measurements...................................................................................91 

Table C-1. Movement to contact, day 2, SME notes....................................................................95 

Table C-2. Subject notes transcribed from video taken on site. ...................................................96 

Table C-3. Movement to contact and attack objective, day 2.......................................................98 

Table C-4. Questionnaires categorized, movement to contact, baseline versus FFW, day 2 

only. .......................................................................................................................................107 

Table C-5. Movement to contact, what they wore, day 4...........................................................108 
x 

Table C-6. Questionnaire results, day 4, movement to contact and attack objective, day 4. .....109 

Table C-7. FFW Soldier video taped comments.........................................................................115 

Table C-8. Movement to contact, baseline versus FFW, day 4 only..........................................116 

Table D-1. Room clearing in MOUT, sample size = 8...............................................................117 

Table D-2. Room excursion questionnaire results, sample size = 8. ..........................................123 

Table D-3. Loft clearing in MOUT questionnaire results, sample size = 8................................127 

Table D-4. Run matrix. ...............................................................................................................133 

Table D-5. Times for entering hole in wall and loft times..........................................................134 

Table D-6. What the Soldiers wore on the excursion. ................................................................135 

Table D-7. Soldier comments by iteration..................................................................................136 

Table D-8. FFW Soldier video taped comments. .......................................................................137 

Table D-9. Summary of Soldiers’ comments about specific gear: room/loft clearing. .............138 

Table D-10. Likert ratings, loft clearing, FFW with belt versus up-armor kit. ..........................140 

Table D-11. Room clearing, Likert ratings, baseline versus FFW with belt. .............................142 

Table D-12. Room clearing, Likert ratings, FFW with belt versus FFW up-armor kit..............143 

Table E-1. Woodland IMT course with CB gear........................................................................145 

Table E-2. Woodland IMT questionnaire, Soldiers’ video comments. ......................................150 

Table E-3. IMT observations. .....................................................................................................151 

Table E-4. SME comments, times, and medical notes. ..............................................................152 

Table F-1. Day 2, AM weights, movement to contact................................................................153 

Table F-2. Day 2, PM weights, movement to contact. ...............................................................155 

Table F-3. Day 3, AM weights, MOUT......................................................................................156 

Table F-4. Day 3, AM weights, MOUT, up armor.....................................................................157 

Table F-5. Day 3, PM weights, MOUT. .....................................................................................158 

Table F-6. Day 3, PM weights, MOUT, up armor......................................................................159 

Table F-7. Day 4, weights, movement to contact. ......................................................................160 

Table F-8. Day 5, weights, CB IMT course................................................................................161 

Table F-9. Typical weight differences FFW versus RFI. ...........................................................161 

Table G-1. Observations from IPT observers.............................................................................163 
xi 

Acknowledgments 

The Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory would 

like to thank the men of the Experimental Force (ExFor), A Company, 1st Battalion, 29th 

Infantry Regiment for their professionalism in the conduct of this experiment. Without the talent 

and “can-do” attitude of the squad that participated, this experiment would not have been 

possible. 

The authors would like to thank the staff of Future Force Warrior Experiment Team for their 

contributions in the preparation and conduct of this experiment. From the Lead Technical 

Integrator: 

Dr. Jeffrey Fernandez 

Mr. Walter Dively 

Mr. David Bearden 

From the Technology Program Office: 

Mr. Steven Brunelle 

Mr. Dave Miller 

The authors would also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the Soldier Battle Lab 

personnel. They were there before we started and after we left: 

Mr. Don Thompson 

Mr. Ed Sankbeil 

Mr. George Mock 
xii 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1 

Executive Summary 

This event was conducted to evaluate the form, fit, and user acceptance of the Future Force 

Warrior (FFW) body systems and headgear system ensembles (without functional electronics). 

The ensembles included new components and the addition of leader and Soldier variations. 

They were evaluated in the context of dismounted Infantry tactical activities. Additionally, the 

experiment investigated the form, fit, and comfort, of a chemical and biological (CB) overgarment with a functional personal air ventilation system (PAVS) and a functional personal airpurifying respirator (PAPR). 

The experiment was executed from 9 to 13 May 2005, with one Infantry squad as participants. 

Soldiers received familiarization training about the prototype equipment. They were briefed at 

the start of each exercise to explain the event requirement. The exercises included an overland 

open terrain environment, an urban warfare environment, and an individual movement 

techniques course. 

Results indicated that the Soldiers liked many aspects of the FFW equipment and concepts; 

however, some refinements are needed to improve the overall comfort of the components, and 

further human factors evaluations are required. Specifically, results indicated that the material 

used for most of the FFW uniform was considered “too hot”. The shirt torso material, however, 

was comfortable and helped “cool” the Soldier. The Soldiers did not like the zippers as they are 

currently configured, but they did like the ventilation concept offered by the zippers. The builtin elbow and knee pads are a good concept but need further refinement to reduce shifting and 

rubbing issues. 

The Soldiers liked the FFW chassis ventilation capability but did not like the “stock lock” 

concept and they experienced some difficulty with the chassis latching system. 

During the event, it became apparent that proper sizing of the chassis and ballistic belt will be 

critical to the overall success of the FFW program. The chassis must accommodate individual 

differences in torso length in order to maximize Soldier protection and comfort. There was some 

concern by test personnel about the protection coverage of the chassis. It was observed that with 

some Soldiers, the chassis seemed short and did not cover the lower torso (between the chassis 

and ballistic belt) adequately. There were concerns about protection at the upper chest and 

underarms as well. 

The FFW chassis allowed the Soldier increased flexibility in “customizing” his equipment for 

mission-specific tasks. Generally, the Soldiers preferred to allocate electronic components to the 

back of the chassis. They reserved the front of the chassis for items one might need quickly, 

such as ammunition and grenades. The Soldiers did not like “hard components,” such as 

batteries and electronic gear, mounted under their arms, because such configurations were 
2 

uncomfortable and hindered arm movement and sighting of weapons. When given the option, 

Soldiers placed electronic items on the rear of the chassis. 

The Soldiers liked the ballistic belt and often used it to carry additional equipment. It became 

apparent that if the belt is used to carry heavy items, it needs suspenders in order to prevent the 

belt from riding too low on the hips. 

The Soldiers accepted the “up armor” items for specific mission scenarios, but they almost 

universally disliked the “neck up armor” option. It restricted movement and vision and tended to 

reduce ventilation while increasing heat. 

The Soldiers felt the CB over-garment and two ventilation systems (PAVS and PAPR) provided 

a significant improvement over current gear. The ventilation systems reduced Soldier mobility 

and capabilities; however, the Soldiers felt the improved comfort was well worth the extra 

weight and reduction in capabilities. One Soldier experienced a total malfunction with his CB 

over-garment. The trousers split along the inseam from knee to knee. 

The only issue with access to ammunition magazines occurred during the CB events when 

Soldiers experienced difficulty acquiring magazines and even more difficulty stowing 

magazines. 

Two life sign detection system (LSDS) configurations were evaluated and the consensus was that 

a combination of the two systems (strap system of the LSDS 1-C1 plus the Hidalgo2 monitoring 

device) will provide the most comfortable configuration. 

Two variations of design cycle III3

 helmets were evaluated. The leader variation was very well 

received by the Soldiers who felt the added weight was not significant, considering the comfort 

of the helmet and the potential of added capabilities. The Soldier variation had some initial heat 

and perspiration issues, which engineers appeared to have solved during the evaluation. 

The Soldiers also contributed to the development process by suggesting additions to the FFW 

ensemble. They proposed “ammunition magazine drop bags” and a method to attach their 

weapon directly to the FFW chassis, in order to aid in the one-arm firing of their weapon. 

Overall, the FFW ensembles need human factors refinements in order to meet comfort and fit 

issues. Future evaluations need to focus on the increased capabilities offered by functional 

systems and need to be conducted with functional electronics. 

 1

Congressional special interest funded strap.

2

Named for the man who developed the system.

3Design cycle III is a programmatic definition of the phase ARL was in at the time of the evaluation.
3 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

The primary purpose of the Future Force Warrior (FFW) engineering design event (EDE) No. 4 

was to identify and evaluate emerging problems or issues with the form, fit, and user acceptance 

of the FFW ensembles and prototype chemical and biological (CB) garment/gear. The FFW 

ensembles did not have functional electronics. The personal air ventilation system (PAVS) and 

the personal air-purifying respirator (PAPR), components of the CB system, were the only FFW 

functional equipment used during the experiment. 

1.1.1 Previous FFW Evaluations 

Design evaluation (DE1) took place on 17 to 20 November 2003 at Aberdeen Proving Ground 

(APG), Maryland. The FFW baseline load carriage, uniform ensemble, integrated headgear, and 

components of the war fighter physiological status monitor (WPSM) were evaluated for physical 

interference between components, comfort, and Soldier acceptability. 

The second FFW design evaluation (DE2) was a user jury conducted 1 to 4 March 2004 at the 

McKenna military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) site, Fort Benning, Georgia. The primary 

purpose of the user jury was to provide the FFW program’s design engineers with an opportunity 

to present and solicit feedback about their current Soldier-borne systems and system of systems 

engineering design concepts. 

The third FFW design evaluation (DE3) was held on 13 to 17 September 2004 at APG. DE3 

evaluated the effect of the FFW ensemble on the Soldiers’ ability to fire weapons in a stationary 

position and in a react-to-fire exercise and gathered Soldier input regarding the stowable eyewear 

system during weapons firing and on the individual movement techniques (IMT) course. This 

evaluation compared FFW equipment to current gear, including interceptor body armor (IBA), 

advanced combat helmet (ACH), and current eyewear. 

Additionally, the FFW Soldier protection and individual equipment system integrated product 

team (IPT) conducted a series of “roll-around4” events to assess equipment/gear comfort and 

physical “fight-ability”. The final “roll-around” was conducted at Camp MacKall, Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, on 18 to 22 October 2004. 

1.1.2 FFW Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) 

Two FFW IPTs participated in the evaluation: body systems and headgear systems. 

 4Informal evaluations conducted by product designers. 
4 

1.1.3 Phases 

After the initial training and fitting of the FFW ensembles and other FFW equipment on day 1, 

the design event was conducted in three phases. 

Phase I – During this phase, one Infantry squad, organized with one FFW fire team and one baseline fire team, conducted a movement to contact and attack on an objective mission. These were 

conducted on days 2 and 4. A medic from the 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment (1/29th) was 

available and on site with the Soldiers. He participated in all activities but not as a test Soldier. 

Phase II – During this phase, fire teams conducted room-clearing operations in a MOUT 

situation with FFW and baseline equipment. One side event was conducted, which consisted of 

Soldiers entering a building through simulated breaches in an exterior wall. 

Phase III – During this phase, four selected Soldiers were fitted to the available CB over-garment 

systems with the FFW ensemble. Each Soldier completed two iterations of the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory’s (ARL) Woodland IMT course at McKenna MOUT. 

Phase IIIa - A side event consisting of two grenadiers (FFW ensemble) and two fire team leaders 

(baseline) traversing a 1.2-km cross-country course was conducted during this phase. 

1.1.4 Participants 

One nine-man Infantry squad plus one medic from the 1/29th Infantry participated in the design 

event. Actual evaluations were conducted over a 4-day period. Soldiers were required to wear 

candidate FFW ensemble equipment and their standard equipment throughout the design event. 

They also carried their individual weapons. 

1.1.5 Apparatus 

1.1.5.1 Body Systems IPT Equipment 

Body systems equipment IPT for this experiment did not have functional electronics except for 

the PAVS and PAPR. All systems were loaded to appropriate weights as determined by body 

systems and confirmed by the Analysis and Experimentation Team and ARL. Body systems 

provided a combat uniform for each Soldier during the event (figures 1 and 2). 

The squad automatic weapon (SAW) and rifleman variation had essentially the same electronics 

layout, with pockets to address the SAW’s specific load needs. 

The grenadier variation had essentially the same electronics layout as the leader, with pockets to 

address the grenadier’s specific load needs. 
5 

 Stock Lock 

 Armor/Load Chassis 

 Body-Borne Display 

 Two Batteries (one shown) 

 Ammunition Pouches (various) 

 Improved First Aid Kit 

 Epaulet GPS Antenna 

 “On-the-move” Hydration 

 Leader Communication Device 

 Leader Battle Command System 

 Ballistic Load Belt 

Figure 1. Body systems, leader variation. 
6 

 Stock Lock 

 Armor/Load Chassis 

 Body-borne Display 

 Ammunition Pouches 

 Health Hub 

 “On-the-move” Hydration 

 Improved First Aid Kit 

 Soldier Communication and 

 Situational Awareness Device 

 Ballistic Load Belt 

 Ammunition Pouches (various) 

Figure 2. Body systems, Soldier variation. 

1.1.5.2 Chemical and Biological (CB) Equipment 

In addition to the various load carriage variations, body systems also supplied two sets of 

prototype CB equipment. This consisted of a one-piece selectively permeable membrane (SPM) 

garment with a joint service general service mask (JSGPM) (XM50) (figure 3), a PAPR, and a 

PAVS. There were two CB suits, sets of gloves, integrated PAVS and PAPR available for 

evaluation. No over-boots were available for evaluation. 

Two variations of the PAPR and PAVS were tested (figures 4 and 5). One variation of the 

PAVS had a hip inlet (medium suit) with PAVS and PAPR carried on the ballistic belt and leg. 

The other variation had an abdomen inlet (large suit) with the PAVS and PAPR carried on the 

ballistic belt and leg. The CB suit was worn only on the Woodland IMT course. 
7 

 

Figure 3. CB SPM garment with JSGPM (XM50) Figure 4. PAVS and PAPR (belt) and PAVS hip inlet. 

 mask. 
8 

Figure 5. PAVS and PAPR (leg) and PAVS abdomen 

inlet. 

1.1.5.3 Headgear Systems IPT Equipment 

The headgear systems IPT provided two types of helmets, a leader and a Soldier variations. 

There were also two types of impact liners, a Brock5 and a Skydex6 (clear plastic looking). The 

leader configuration included the sensor mock-ups. The helmets were adjusted by head band 

type of strapping and/or pads inside the helmets. Figures 6 and 7 show the two variations. 

 5

Brock is a trademark of Brock USA. 

6Skydex is a trademark of SKYDEX Technologies, Inc.
9 

Figure 6. FFW design cycle III7 (leader). 

Figure 7. FFW design cycle III (Soldier). 

1.1.5.4 Body Systems (Health and Sustainment) IPT Equipment 

Eight nonfunctional WPSM systems (figure 8) were evaluated during the EDE No. 4. The 

WPSM consisted of several parts, including a health hub, LSDS (figures 9 and 10), elastic strap 

with the ballistic impact detection system (BIDS) and a sleep monitor. Two versions of the 

LSDS evaluated: the Hidalgo8

 and the LSDS 1-C9. 

 7

Design cycle III is a programmatic definition of the phase ARL was in at the time of the evaluation.

8

Named for the man who developed the LSDS.

9Congressional special interest funded strap. 
10 

Figure 8. WPSM health hub. 

Figure 9. LSDS 1-C. 
11 

 

Figure 10. LSDS Hidalgo (front and back). 

1.2 Purpose 

1.2.1 Chassis Loads 

The purpose was to evaluate the form, fit, comfort, load distribution, and load distribution 

options (how each Soldier loaded his system) of Soldier variations (leader, rifleman, SAW, 

grenadier, and medic). 

1.2.2 Ammunition Access 

To evaluate the Soldiers’ abilities to access ammunition pouches while firing weapons. 

1.2.3 Chassis Components 

To solicit feedback from Soldiers about comfort, fit, and location of the ensemble components 

(including “up-armor” options, chassis closure mechanism, gear, electronics locations, power 

and personal area network (this is not an exhaustive list) while they wore the fighting and/or 

approach loads. During this event, the “up armor” is defined as 

• The entire base FFW ensemble, including the chassis and ballistic belt. 

• Shoulder-up armor. 

• Neck-up armor. 

• Abdomen-up armor. 

• Drop leg panel with soft ballistic up armor. 
12 

1.2.4 CB Gear 

To collect limited data about the form, fit, comfort, and wear and tear of the CB gear, as 

applicable during this event. 

1.2.5 CB and Weapons Firing Interaction 

To evaluate the interaction between the CB gear with various weapons and the chassis during 

weapons firing (blanks). 

1.2.6 Helmets and Weapons Firing Interaction 

To evaluate the interaction between the design cycle III helmet with various weapons and the 

chassis during weapons firing (blanks). 

1.2.7 Design Cycle III Helmets 

To evaluate the fit and comfort of the design cycle III helmet. 

1.2.8 LSDS 

To evaluate the form, fit, and comfort of the LSDS. 

2. Methodology 

The experiment was conducted over a 5-day period in existing weather and light conditions at 

Fort Benning. Table 1 shows the event schedule. The movement to contact was conducted on 

two separate days, but for ease of understanding, the results are reported together. 

Table 1. Experiment event schedule. 

Day Event 

1 Demographics and Anthropometrics 

2 Movement to Contact 

3 MOUT and Side Experiment 

4 Movement to Contact 

5 IMT Course and Side Experiment 

2.1 Demographics and Anthropometrics 

The Soldiers were given an orientation about the purpose of the study and their participation. 

They were briefed about the objectives and procedures for each day, as well as the equipment 

they would use. They were also told how the results would be used and the benefits that the 

military expected from this investigation. 
13 

Investigators asked the Soldiers if any had a medical profile or history that would jeopardize 

their participation in the study. Soldiers also completed a medical status form. 

In addition, the volunteer agreement affidavit was explained and its contents were verbally 

presented. 

Demographic data and anthropometric measurements were gathered for each Soldier. Data 

concerning their Infantry experience and training were included in the demographic data sheet. 

2.2 Training/Fitting: Day 1

2.2.1 Training 

Before training, the Soldiers received a roster number, which was used to identify them 

throughout the assessment. Representatives from the FFW IPTs presented courses on the use, 

fit, and adjustment features of the FFW ensembles and head gear. 

2.2.2 Fitting 

Following the training session, each Soldier was fitted to the FFW equipment and gear that he 

would wear during the evaluation. Each Soldier received a pair of FFW pants and a shirt which he 

wore throughout the experiment whenever FFW gear was being evaluated. Upon completion of 

the training and fitting session, the Soldiers were given a questionnaire with questions designed to 

solicit their acceptance and thoughts about the training received as well as the initial comfort of the 

FFW ensemble. The CB equipment was not presented nor fitted during the day 1 session. 

2.3 Movement to Contact: Days 2 and 4 

The movement-to-contact phase was conducted on days 2 and 4. During this 2-day event, the 

fire teams traversed their assigned routes as shown in table 2. The fire team members wore one 

of the LSDS every day. The two LSDS were rotated by the fire team on a daily basis, so the 

Soldiers wore the LSDS with both the FFW and baseline. 

Table 2. Route and equipment matrix. 

Day Time of Day FFW Ensemble Baseline 

2 Morning – Route 1 Fire Team A Fire Team B 

2 Afternoon – Route 2 Fire Team B Fire Team A 

4 Morning – Route 2 Fire Team B Fire Team A 

4 Afternoon – Route 2 Fire Team A Fire Team B 

Upon arrival at Griswold range, the squad was issued a fragmentary order (FRAGO) to move 

cross country to an intermediate objective and to continue to an objective rally point (ORP). At 

the ORP, the squad prepared to assault a final objective. There were two different courses 

approximately 2 km long, as shown in figure 11. 
14 

Figure 11. Movement-to-contact routes. 

The squad was organized with one fire team wearing the experimental load carriage ensemble, 

headgear, and WPSM components (FFW) and one fire team wearing the current equipment 

fighting loads and the WPSM components (baseline) (table 2). Each Soldier in the fire team, 

who wore the FFW experimental load carriage ensemble, was allowed to configure the missionspecific pouches on his chassis to his preference. On day 2, Soldiers were allowed to configure 

their FFW gear with optional items. On day 4, the Soldiers wore the prescribed equipment on 

their carriage ensemble. Table 3 shows what each man wore on day 4. 

The squad was controlled by a white cell platoon leader (performed by test personnel) and 

responded to his commands. The Soldiers carried their fighting loads over a pre-planned 2-km 

course. The squad was accompanied by two observer/controllers (data collectors) and a video 

cameraman. IPT personnel were situated at the intermediate objective, the ORP, and the 

objective to assist in FFW equipment adjustments, if requests for adjustments were initiated by 

the Soldiers. Observer/controllers interviewed the Soldiers at the intermediate objective and the 

ORPs. Additionally, the Soldiers were allowed to re-configure their load at the ORP before the 

final assault on the objective. 

During the movement to contact and before the assault, the Soldiers carried physical mock-ups 

of ammunition magazines that were weight and volume accurate (figure 12). At the ORP, the 

mock-up ammunition was replaced by magazines and drums loaded with blank rounds. Data 

collectors were present at the ORP to record any changes in equipment configuration that the 

Soldiers made between the movement to contact and the assault. 

Route 1

Route 2 
15 

Table 3. Day 4 movement to contact (what they wore). 

Position FFW Base 

Team 

leader 

Leader variation helmet with glasses 

Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches/six magazines front 

 One smoke front 

 Individual first aid kit (IFAK) left side 

 One battery left side 

 70-oz. hydration back left 

 Leader’s computer back 

 Battery right side 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

IBA with 

 First aid kit front 

 Three ammunition pouches with six magazines 

 One smoke front 

 Camel back 

Grenadier Soldier variation helmet with drop-down 

Chassis with 

 Four 40-mm rounds right side 

 Four 40-mm rounds on left front 

 Four 40-mm rounds on right front 

 Three ammunition pouches lower front 

 SA display right front 

 Combat lifesaver (CLS) left side 

 One battery under left arm 

 70-oz. hydration back 

 Computer lower back 

 One battery on right rear 

 One radio right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IBA with 

 Six 40-mm rounds front 

 Three ammunition pouches with six magazines 

 Four 40-mm rounds left side 

 IFAK back 

 Camel back 

 Two 40-mm rounds right side 

SAW Leader variation helmet with glasses 

Chassis with 

 Two 100 rd on belt left and right 

 Display right side 

 CLS left side 

 Battery lower back 

 Health hub beside battery 

 SA box lower right rear 

 70-oz. hydration 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

Ballistic belt with suspenders 

ACH helmet 

Protective eye ware 

IBA with 

 First aid pouch upper left front 

 Four 100 rd ammunition lower front 

 Two grenade pouches upper front 

 Camel back 

Rifleman Soldier variation helmet with drop-down 

Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 70-oz. hydration back 

 CLS back 

 Butt pack back 

 Health hub back 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IBA with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 Camel back 

 CLS back 
16 

Figure 12. Mock ammunition. 

As the Soldiers assaulted the objective at Kunzig Range, a two-man opposing force (OPFOR) 

engaged the assaulting Soldiers (figure 13). 

Figure 13. Assault: Kunzig range. 
17 

The Soldiers conducted this event twice per day on days 2 and 4. Upon completion, Soldiers 

completed a subjective questionnaire soliciting comments about form, fit, comfort, load carriage, 

and overall comments concerning the equipment. 

After each day of testing, an after-action review (AAR) and focus group session gathered 

additional comments and addressed issues that developed during the day. All sessions were 

video taped. 

2.4 MOUT: Day 3 

During this phase, the Soldiers operated as independent fire teams and wore the baseline equipment, the FFW ensemble with ballistic belt, or the FFW ensemble with “up armor” configuration. 

This phase consisted of two separate events. One event was “clearing a room” and the other was 

“clearing a second story loft”. Table 4 shows the order of conduct for the MOUT activities. An 

extra run was conducted for each fire team. During this extra run, the fire team members were 

allowed to configure their FFW ensemble to fit their preference. 

Table 4. MOUT operations matrix. 

Fire Team Time of Day Objective Configuration 

B 0850 Loft Belt 

A 0904 Room Base 

B 0925 Room Up Armor 

A 0940 Loft Base 

B 0950 Loft Up Armor 

B 1015 Room Belt 

B Extra Room Self 

A 1330 Room Belt 

B 1345 Room Base 

A 1355 Loft Belt 

B 1415 Loft Base 

A 1435 Room Up Armor 

A 1457 Loft Up Armor 

A Extra Room Self 

Upon completion, Soldiers completed a subjective questionnaire soliciting comments about 

form, fit, comfort, load carriage, and overall comments concerning the equipment. 

2.4.1 Room Clearing 

During this event, a fire team entered a “partially” secured building and received a FRAGO from 

an observer/controller acting as a platoon sergeant (PSG) to “clear” a specific room. Both 

baseline and FFW fire teams executed this event. A two-man OPFOR defended each room. 

2.4.2 Loft Clearing 

During this event, a fire team entered a “partially” secured building and received a FRAGO from 

an observer/controller acting as a PSG to “clear” a second story loft that was accessible by a 
18 

ladder. Both baseline and FFW fire teams executed this event. There were no OPFOR in the 

loft. 

2.4.3 Excursion 

After completing three iterations of room clearing and three of loft, each fire team conducted an 

excursion. The excursion consisted of each member of the fire team “personalizing” the FFW 

equipment for a room-clearing mission. Each Soldier modified the FFW components, deleting, 

modifying, or re-positioning items for the mission. Each Soldier was interviewed before and 

after the room-clearing operation. 

2.5 IMT Course: Day 5

Soldiers were selected by size to fit a medium or large CB garment. The only difference 

between the medium and large garments was the PAVS inlet location. The medium CB garment 

had an “abdomen” PAVS inlet and the large garment had a “hip” PAVS inlet. Each Soldier 

completed two iterations of the Woodland IMT course as shown in table 5. At the completion of 

two iterations, the test officer stopped the exercise because of high wet bulb globe readings and 

high temperatures. 

Table 5. IMT course matrix. 

Iteration Size Configuration 

1 Medium A 

1 Large B 

1 Medium C 

1 Large A 

2 Medium B 

2 Large A 

2 Medium A 

2 Large C 

A – FFW, CB, and mask 

B – FFW, CB, mask and PAVS/PAPR belt mount 

C – FFW, CB, mask and PAVS/PAPR leg mount 

Soldiers were shown how to safely negotiate the IMT course and were trained in specific 

procedures as required. Additionally, each Soldier was provided the opportunity to walk the 

IMT course at a slow speed in order to familiarize him with the course and to reduce Soldier risk. 

The Soldiers were required to fire multiple magazines at different locations on the IMT course, 

as shown in figure 14. They had to retrieve magazines from their ammunition pouches, place the 

magazines into their weapon, and replace the empty magazines in the proper pouch when 

finished. 

Upon completion, subjects completed a subjective questionnaire soliciting comments on form, 

fit, comfort, load carriage, and overall comments concerning the equipment. 
19 

Figure 14. Woodland IMT course layout. 

2.6 Side Experiments

2.6.1 Breaches: Day 3

A separate side test evaluated the fire teams’ abilities to enter the building through three different 

simulated breaching holes. Figure 15 shows the three different sized breaching holes that the 

Soldiers traversed to enter the building. 

1

8

6

4

3 

2

10

OBSTACLE OBSTACLE & 

FIRING POINT 

5

9 7

11 
20 

Figure 15. Breaching holes. 

2.6.2 M203 Side Event: Day 5

This event consisted of the two grenadiers wearing the FFW leader’s variation and the two fire 

team leaders wearing their baseline equipment while traversing a cross-country course. This 

course consisted of thick underbrush, stream crossings, low crawl areas, and open woodland. 

The course, approximately 1 km long, was delineated in the vicinity of the IMT course. 

Figure 16 shows the course. 

2.7 After-Action Reviews (AARs)

At the completion of each day’s activities, all Soldiers participated in an AAR that covered the 

day’s activities. These AARs were moderated by the test director. Before each AAR, the test 

director consulted with his staff and the IPTs to ensure that all areas of interest and concern were 

covered. When the AAR was completed, the test director relinquished the activity to the analysis 

and evaluation team leader, and the floor was opened to all unofficial questions that the IPTs 

might have had. All AARs were video taped. 

Figure 16. Cross-country course. 

Crawl under tree 

Crawl under tree

High Crawl

High Crawl

Creek 

Ravine 
21 

3. Results 

The writers of this report performed more than 204 statistical tests at the 5% significance level 

on the tables in this paragraph. One might expect to find (0.05) (204) = 10.2 significant results 

just by chance alone. The number of significant tests that were reported is not much more than 

one would expect by chance alone, so the reader should be careful when interpreting these. The 

writers are concerned because the tests that were statistically significant were not significant on 

both days in the case of the movement to contact. These were attributed to a learning curve but 

could be attributable to chance. This is a typical problem with such small sample sizes. 

3.1 Demographics and Anthropometrics (Day 1) 

The Infantry squad from the 1st Battalion 29th Infantry Regiment consisted of a squad leader 

(E-6) and two complete fire teams for a total of nine personnel. A medic joined the group on 

day 2. The Soldiers had a mean time in service of 51 months and a mean of 15 months in their 

current jobs. They were physically fit with a mean of 267 of a possible 300 on their latest 

physical fitness test. Three of the 10 had some experience on the Land Warrior program. Three 

of the nine had served in a hostile fire zone, with three in Iraq and two of the three also serving in 

Afghanistan. All nine had trained or worn mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) IV gear, 

with a mean time of four days for the longest time in MOPP IV. 

In their self rating on knowledge, skills, and abilities related to Infantry duties, all rated themselves above average except in proficiency in CB operations and knowledge of reconnaissance, 

surveillance, and target acquisition procedures. All the Soldiers were currently issued an ACH. 

Five Soldiers wore modular lightweight load-carrying equipment (MOLLE) and four wore allpurpose lightweight individual carrying equipment (ALICE). The full demographics results are 

presented in appendix A. 

The Soldiers were also measured on key anthropometrics, and the results are shown in table 6. 

There were three Soldiers (5, 6, and 7) who had an extremely small percentile (2) crotch height 

but a more normal stature percentile. As shown in figure 17, this translates into a “long-waisted” 

person or someone who may need special consideration when we are trying to fit into body 

armor chassis of any kind. 
22 

Table 6. Anthropometric measurements (percentile). 

Roster 

Chest 

Circum

-ference 

Crotch 

Height 

Head 

Circum

-ference 

Head 

Breadth 

Head 

Length 

Sleeve 

Length: 

SpineWrist 

Waist 

Circumference 

(omphalion) Weight Stature 

Waist 

Back 

Length 

1 Did not participate in event; not enough FFW ensembles 

2 96 43 60 34 65 62 77 98 87 10 

3 91 12 92 90 80 73 92 96 87 38 

4 12 43 85 34 90 34 20 25 76 10 

5 48 2 15 15 19 30 65 30 22 2 

6 97 2 75 75 65 18 92 93 43 23 

7 91 2 30 5 19 2 95 77 23 10 

8 30 55 35 15 19 40 38 50 90 10 

9 72 72 95 75 85 68 72 88 98 48 

Figure 17. Soldier with long waist. 

Three of the anthropometric measurements were compared with measures taken from a sample 

of 1774 U.S. Army Soldiers in 1988 (Gordon et al., 1989). Table 7 shows the results of that 

comparison. The average crotch height of the Soldiers in the present study was significantly 

shorter as compared with the Army sample. There was a trend for the Soldiers in this study to be 

somewhat heavier than the Army sample. The two groups did not differ significantly in stature. 

Table 7. Comparison of anthropometric measures with 1998 Army sample. 

FFW n=8 Army n=1774 

Measure Mean SD Mean SD t 2-tailed p 

Crotch height (in.) 31.2 2.14 33.0 1.82 2.17 < .05 

Weight (lb) 192.6 28.2 173.0 24.3 1.84 < .10 

Stature (in.) 70.6 2.86 69.1 2.63 1.38 ns 

SD = standard deviation 
23 

3.2 Training and Fitting: Day 1 

The Soldiers were all satisfied with the training received for the FFW ensemble, the headgear, 

and the medical items. The results of their questionnaire responses are shown in appendix B. 

All eight Soldiers indicated that they found no safety-related issues with the equipment and that 

they all understood how to use, wear, and carry the equipment. 

When asked to rate the comfort of the FFW ensemble and other items of FFW equipment on a 

7-point Likert scale (with one being extremely uncomfortable and 7 being extremely comfortable), 

the Soldiers responded as shown in table 8. Samples of the 7-point Likert scales used in this report 

are given in the appendices. The 7-point Likert scale used for this table is shown in appendix B. 

Table 8. Mean response to training and fitting questions. 

Item n Mean SD 

Combat pants 8 4.63 0.92 

Combat shirt 8 4.75 0.89 

Armor chassis 8 4.88 0.83 

Armored load belt 6 5.17 0.98 

FFW ballistic helmet shell 7 5.43 0.98 

Headgear suspension and impact liner with integrated eyewear 6 6.00 0.63 

On-the-move 70-oz. hydration system 7 5.86 1.21 

IFAK 8 5.38 1.30 

Electric components pouch 8 4.50 1.31 

Battery pouch 8 4.50 1.31 

Pre-configured components 8 4.63 1.30 

Soldier radio 7 4.71 1.38 

200-round drum pouches 2 4.00 2.83 

Grenadier load pack 2 6.33 0.58 

Combat lifesaver load pack 5 5.80 1.30 

Assault pack 4 6.00 0.82 

Wiring harness 6 5.00 1.55 

Ammunition pouches 6 5.83 1.17 

Overall comfort 8 5.38 1.19 

WPSM: LSDS 7 4.00 1.73 

WPSM: Sleep watch 4 4.25 1.26 

The Soldiers initially found these items to be very comfortable: headgear suspension and impact 

liner with integrated eyewear; “on-the-move” hydration 70 ounce; 200-round drum pouch; 

grenadier load pack; combat lifesaver pack; assault pack; ammunition pouches; and sleep watch. 

The chasses were sizes 1 through 3, with 3 being the largest. There were no sizes that took into 

consideration the different torso lengths. As a result, test personnel noticed some problems with 

fitting all the Soldiers. Soldier number 6 was too big for size 2 and a little too small for size 3. 

There was some question about the length of the torso fit also, as the chassis seemed to ride too 

low. There were similar problems with Soldiers 2 and 3. Their chasses did not fit properly. 

Both Soldiers 2 and 3 stated that their chasses felt comfortable at the end of the training and 

fitting event. Later in the experiment when the Soldiers had worn the FFW chasses during the 

cross-country movement and on other activities, there were some changes in the responses to 
24 

comfort. There is a big difference in initial impressions and wearing any equipment for a short 

period of time versus wearing and using it in a field environment for extended periods of time. 

A comparison of Soldier-load weights between FFW-equipped Soldiers and baseline-equipped 

Soldiers is shown in table 9. The weights the Soldiers carried in their fighting loads are 

excessive for both FFW and baseline as prescribed by the Infantry School. In all cases, the 

FFW-configured Soldier’s weight is more than the baseline. However, for those Soldiers 

configured with the Soldier variation, the delta was significantly less than for those configured 

with the leader variation. The leader variation worn by the team leader and the grenadier was 17 

pounds heavier than the baseline. This is significant. In the continuing design effort of the 

leader variation, the program team must be aware of the question, “Is the extra capability worth 

the extra weight?” The added weight will have a noticeable effect on the team leader and the 

grenadier over the long run on extended operations. 

Table 9. Typical weight differences (FFW versus baseline). 

ID Pos Load Types Weight ID Pos Load Types Weight 

Delta 

FFW 

vs. 

Base 

2 A-TL FFW Fighting Load 294.75 6 B-TL Baseline Fighting Load 261.5 

 

Body Weight with 

BDU* 230 Body Weight with BDU 214.5 

 Delta 64.75 Delta 47 17.75 

3 G FFW Fighting Load 293.75 7 G Baseline Fighting Load 245.75 

 

Body Weight with 

BDU 220 Body Weight with BDU 189 

 Delta 73.75 Delta 56.75 17.0 

4 AR FFW Fighting Load 218.25 8 AR Baseline Fighting Load 229 

 

Body Weight with 

BDU 156 Body Weight with BDU 171 

 Delta 62.25 Delta 58 4.25 

5 R FFW Fighting Load 214.75 9 R Baseline Fighting Load 251.5 

 

Body Weight with 

BDU 160 Body Weight with BDU 201 

 Delta 54.75 Delta 50.5 4.25 

*BDU = battle dress uniform 

3.3 Movement to Contact: Days 2 and 4 

3.3.1 Movement to Contact: Day 2, General Results 

When the Soldiers arrived at Griswold Range, Fire Team A was fitted into the FFW chassis. 

This took longer than expected (about 2 hours). Figure 18 shows the Soldiers donning the FFW 

ensemble before movement to contact began. 
25 

Figure 18. Soldiers donning gear. 

The squad was then given a FRAGO and shown (via a map reconnaissance) their intermediate 

and final objectives (figure 11). Fire Team A wore the FFW ensemble and Fire Team B wore 

the baseline equipment, as shown in table 1. The squad leader and both fire team leaders 

understood the mission and the routes they were expected to traverse. 

Because of the shortage of FFW ensembles, the squad leader did not wear the FFW ensemble. 

He did wear the new combat shirt and pants and was closely involved with his squad members 

and their reactions to the FFW ensemble. This reduced the sample size to eight on most 

activities. 

The body systems IPT fabricated suspenders for the ballistic belt and other comfort and 

convenience items. This resulted in some Soldiers with suspenders for their ballistic belts and 
26 

some without. On the morning of day 2, two of the Soldiers (4 and 8, grenadiers) chose to use 

the belts with suspenders (figure 19). As a result of this selective uniform configuring, the 

sample size for each Soldier configuration became one. It was not feasible to compare any data 

from fire team to fire team because each member of each fire team configured his system 

personally. Therefore, all data from day 2 are a sample size of one. On day 4, the Soldiers were 

not allowed to configure their own FFW chassis systems but were told what and where to wear 

the FFW equipment, based on the comments of the Soldiers on day 2. 

Figure 19. Soldier wearing suspenders. 

The test personnel made a concerted effort to ensure that the IPTs had access to the Soldiers, 

within limits, to obtain independent information concerning the Soldiers’ preferences for the 

form, fit, and comfort of the FFW ensemble and other equipment in the experiment. 

Also on day 2, the test personnel found that one of the SAW gunners was too slender to be 

properly fitted with a ballistic belt. There were insufficient numbers of size 1’s to fit the two 

“small-waisted” Soldiers. Using a belt that was too big caused pinching in front/side areas. 

Therefore, the IPTs and the Soldier decided that he should not wear a ballistic belt, but that he 

would attach his leg panels, with ammunition, to his standard trousers’ belt. This resulted in 

serious problems with the Soldier trying to keep his trousers up in a normal position (figure 20). 
27 

Figure 20. Soldier: no ballistic belt with leg panels. 

During the fitting and sizing, the IPT trainers determined the uniform sizes for all Soldiers to be 

within tolerance of good fit. However, as pointed out earlier, there is usually a big difference in 

the way equipment fits and feels in the field versus the classroom so this issue should continue to 

be evaluated. 

3.3.2 Day 2, Specific Results 

The results of the Soldier questionnaires are shown in appendix C. As stated before, the responses 

for the FFW were initially treated as a sample size of one because every Soldier configured his 

ensemble differently. However, when we considered the issue of form, fit, and comfort, the FFW 

and baseline responses were consolidated into a sample size of eight. Table 10 shows the 

descriptive statistics for questions about the Soldiers’ abilities to complete specific tasks. A 

complete listing of Soldier responses to all questions is provided in appendix C. The Soldiers 

reported the biggest disadvantages with FFW in the areas of leg movement and ability to do basic 

movement techniques. They reported a slight disadvantage with the FFW in the areas of assuming 

a kneeling position, running, and movement through thick under brush. Conversely, they reported 
28 

a slight advantage in their ability to use hand and arm signals with the FFW. All other areas were 

virtually a tie. 

Table 10. Mean responses to task completion. 

Ability to Complete Tasks 

Baseline FFW 

Question n Mean SD n Mean SD 

Ease of leg movement 9 6.22 1.09 9 4.00 1.87 

Ease of assuming prone position 8 5.88 0.99 7 5.57 0.98 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 9 6.22 1.09 9 5.11 1.54 

Ease of arm movement 9 5.11 0.93 9 5.11 1.17 

Ease of torso movement 8 5.00 1.31 9 5.11 1.27 

Ease of head movement 8 6.00 0.93 9 6.11 1.05 

Ability to run 9 5.78 1.20 9 4.22 2.49 

Use of hand and arm signals 9 5.56 0.88 9 6.11 0.78 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6 5.67 1.03 8 5.50 1.31 

Move through thick brush and vines 8 5.50 1.20 9 4.89 1.69 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture 9 5.67 1.22 9 5.89 1.27 

Target identification 9 5.67 1.22 9 5.89 1.17 

Conducting IMT 7 5.00 1.15 8 3.50 0.76 

Soldier comments on their ability to complete tasks include: 

FFW 

• The 203 belt needs suspenders. 

• A lot of things on the vest get hung up, especially in the gap between the vest and belt. 

• The leg panels were very heavy; running and jumping were very difficult, overall 

“smoked” (exhausted) the legs. 

• Had a hard time running, clips on thigh mount kept rubbing together. 

• Assault pack kept coming undone. 

• SAW ammunition pouch under left arm is no good. 

• Need something to prevent sweat from entering eyes. 

BASELINE

• The IBA is much more mobile and the load is distributed better. 

• Put the pads from the new one in there to create the same space, combine the IBA with 

the new vest and you guys will have some real good stuff. 

• We are used to working with the IBA so it’s hard to say it’s harder or easier. 

Table 11 shows the mean responses from the Soldier questionnaires on problems they may have 

encountered. Most responses revealed very few problem areas. However, the Soldiers reported 

more problems with the baseline in the areas of hot spots, torso chafing, ability to breathe, and 

overall comfort. With the FFW, the Soldiers reported problems with weight shifting, hindrance 

in movement, and equipment pinching. 
29 

Table 11. Mean responses to problem areas encountered. 

Baseline FFW 

Question n Mean SD n Mean SD 

Problem Areas Encountered 

Pressure points 9 5.78 1.56 9 5.67 1.41 

Hot spots 9 4.22 1.92 9 5.67 1.66 

Bruising on your body 9 5.78 1.64 9 5.44 1.67 

Torso chafing in front 9 4.22 2.28 9 5.11 1.69 

Torso chafing in back 9 5.00 2.18 9 5.78 1.30 

Arm/shoulder chafing 9 5.22 1.79 9 6.11 1.05 

Leg/thigh chafing 9 6.33 1.00 9 5.33 1.50 

Neck/head chafing 9 5.11 1.54 9 6.11 1.27 

Equipment snagging 9 5.44 1.33 9 5.33 1.41 

Equipment hindering movement 9 5.67 1.12 9 4.44 1.67 

Weight shifting 9 5.00 1.73 9 4.44 2.30 

Equipment pinching 9 5.00 1.73 9 4.89 2.09 

Load adjustment 9 5.78 1.30 9 5.56 1.24 

Access to stowed items 9 5.22 1.20 9 6.22 0.67 

Ability to breathe 9 4.78 1.79 9 6.22 0.67 

Overall comfort 9 4.22 1.64 9 4.78 0.83 

Soldier comments on problem areas encountered include: 

FFW 

• Torso stayed cool, but arms were hot (2). 

• Elbow pads felt weird and the straps would not stay in place. 

• Legs were very hot (2). 

• Knee pads rubbed shins. 

• Zipper on the shirt digs into the chest. 

• Knee pad shifted out of place and loosened (2). 

• Not use to waist belt. 

• Knee pads need more cushion. 

• Vest does not stay fastened. 

• Shirt collar rubbed my neck a little raw. 

• Heart monitor was good; you don’t realize it’s there until you take your stuff off. 

• Helmet needs some work in the band; it doesn’t size right for my head. 

• Pinching between belt and vest (2). 

• Heavy on shoulders after awhile. 

• Knee pads move too much and don’t have the protection of the old ones. 

• Batteries dig into arm. 

• Zipper on pants digs into butt while I’m sitting. 

• Pants need front pockets. 

• Heart monitor chafed my neck (Hidalgo). 

• Movement and weight shifting with leg panels; every step I took, the leg panels moved 

my legs. 

• Leg panels came loose, snagging on clips. 

BASELINE 

• IBA causes lower back pain and stiff shoulders. 

• IBA needs more padding, mostly in the shoulder area. 
30 

• IBA puts pressure on your shoulders. 

• Neck is too high on the IBA and it’s too hot and hard to breathe. 

• Hidalgo stinks; sticks to the skin and rubbing causing chafing (2). (Note: Soldiers wore 

LSDS with both FFW and baseline.) 

• The IBA has no way of allowing air to come in so the heat buildup is extremely high. 

Table 12 shows the mean responses to questions about whether the Soldiers encountered any 

pain. 

Table 12. Mean response to pain levels. 

Baseline FFW 

Question n Mean SD n Mean SD 

Level of Pain (if any) Experienced 

Upper back 9 5.89 1.27 9 5.67 1.22 

Lower back 9 4.56 1.67 9 5.78 1.56 

Neck 9 5.44 1.33 9 6.44 0.88 

Head 9 5.89 1.54 9 6.89 0.33 

Torso front 9 5.44 1.81 9 5.78 1.64 

Groin 9 6.78 0.44 9 6.67 0.50 

Legs 9 6.56 0.73 9 4.89 2.47 

Arms 9 6.33 1.00 9 6.11 0.78 

Eyes 9 6.89 0.33 9 6.56 0.73 

Soldier comments on pain levels include: 

FFW 

• Knee pads rubbed shins. 

• Lack of padding in shoulders caused pain (2). 

• Zipper on shirt digs into chest. 

• Weight of the 203 rounds on leg panels isn’t much, but moving through the terrain we 

just went through was rough (2). 

• All that stuff seems to centralize on your hips. 

• Torso pain is from the Hidalgo heart monitor, it rubs all over the side (2). 

• If you could come up with something that attached to the body armor itself, it would be 

good. The leg panel is just a bad idea for all the 40-mm rounds. 

• Sweat in eyes. 

• Leg clips rubbing together, possible chafing. 

BASELINE

• Heart monitor piece bothered by back part of IBA. 

• LSDS stinks (Hidalgo). 

• IBA has no padding on shoulders 

• Back plate rides too high and bounces off lower back. 

• IBA rubs your head and neck raw. 

• The heart monitor dug into my chest and pushed into my sternum. 

• IBA rubbed neck. 

• Weight shifted from one shoulder to the other (3). 

• Heat buildup is extremely high.
31 

The Soldiers reported that nothing interfered with their ability to complete the mission and they 

reported no unsafe incidents. However, one stated that even though the FFW ensemble did not 

interfere, it caused more irritation than necessary. One Soldier commented on the questionnaire 

and others verbally that they did not like the ammunition pouches. The top of the ammunition 

pouch was too tight, and they had difficulty replacing magazines. 

Three of the Soldiers reported they shifted and re-tightened the knee pads because of problems 

with rubbing their shins and coming loose while they moved through the woods. Several 

mentioned the ballistic belt and that they had to continuously adjust it. 

The Soldiers did not like the location of the electronics. They overwhelmingly wanted all 

electronics moved to the back. All but one Soldier disliked the “stock lock” and its location on 

the shoulder strap. Several pointed out that it was useless because of its location. The butt of the 

weapon, when drawn to the shoulder, is not as high toward the neck as the “stock lock” is 

situated. Figure 21 shows the location of the “stock lock”. The Soldiers would like an attachment 

between the chassis and the weapon that would allow them to pull the weapon up into the firing 

position with one hand. Figure 22 shows a makeshift example of this method of attaching the 

weapon. This allows the Soldier to have both hands free but also allows him to bring the weapon 

into a firing position with one hand. 

Figure 21. Stock lock. 
32 

Figure 22. Shoulder weapons attachment. 

The Soldiers were quizzed about their preferences for wearing the “up-armor” configuration on 

different missions. 

Figure 23 shows a Soldier with the “up armor,” and figure 24 shows a Soldier with the base FFW 

ensemble. 

At this point, the Soldiers had not worn the FFW with up armor, but they were asked about 

wearing it on typical missions. They had worn the leg-up armor panels without the inserts. The 

leg-up armor panels were used primarily as a means to carry 40-mm rounds or SAW ammunition. 

Table 13 shows their responses for the shoulder-up armor inserts. Table 14 shows their responses 

for the neck-up armor. Table 15 shows their responses for abdomen-up armor. Table 16 shows 

their responses for leg-up armor. 
33 

Figure 23. “Up” armor. 

Shoulder 

Neck 

Leg 

Abdomen
34 

Figure 24. FFW basic chassis and ballistic belt. 

Table 13. Soldiers’ responses for shoulder-up armor. 

Number of Responses Shoulder Plate Inserts FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 

Defense 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 

Counter-attack 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

1 = yes 0 = no 

Table 14. Soldiers’ responses for neck-up armor. 

Number of Responses Neck Protector Inserts FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Defense 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Counter-attack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
35 

Table 15. Soldiers’ responses for abdomen-up armor. 

Number of Responses Belly Panel Inserts FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Attack 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 

Defense 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Counter-attack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Table 16. Soldiers’ responses for leg-up armor. 

Number of Responses Thigh Inserts FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Attack 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 

Defense 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 

Counter-attack 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 

Most of the Soldiers did not like the up-armor option, especially the neck-up armor. Their 

biggest complaints were that it was too heavy and restricted head movement as well as vision. 

These comments came before they had a chance to wear the up armor on any tactical mission. 

Additional Soldier comments include 

• All the extra protectors would be most beneficial to a gunner on a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle. 

• Thigh panels should remain completely optional since they don’t help the SAW gunners at 

all. 

When asked about donning the chassis, five Soldiers reported problems. The biggest problem 

was the latching system. Figure 25 shows the FFW chassis latching system. The Soldiers did 

not like this means of attaching the chassis because it was so difficult to latch and unlatch. Some 

Soldiers asked the IPTs to file the latching system to allow easier latching and unlatching, and 

some systems became worn and easier to latch and unlatch by week’s end. The Soldiers had 

similar problems in doffing the chassis. 
36 

 unlatched latched 

Figure 25. Chassis latching system. 

When asked how they would change the FFW chassis if they could, the Soldiers had the 

following comments: 

• Use a lighter material for the pants and shirt (too hot) (2). 

• Make the knee pads shorter to lessen the rubbing of the shins. 

• Find a way to remove the zipper from the shirt or pad somehow. 

• The pants need some sort of mesh to stop bugs when you unzip them for ventilation. 

• Get rid of the little stuff like the wires on the side. 

• Get rid of the butt stock skid plate; use something like the non-slip fabric on a shooting 

vest. 

• Do something to get the cords that tighten the chassis out of the way; they just dangle now. 

• Better latch for chassis and move it around where you can get to it. 

• The water hydration system needs to have more capacity. 
37 

• Can’t get to pants pockets when wearing leg panels. 

• The ballistic belt needs suspenders. 

• Make the leg panels lighter. 

3.3.3 Day 2, FFW Helmet Assembly Results 

The Soldiers had a few problems with the Soldier variation helmet during the movement to 

contact. This was primarily attributed to heat accumulation and perspiration problems. It is 

believed that during the day 2 activities, the helmets that had a Skydex liner contributed to this 

problem (figure 26). On subsequent days, it became apparent that the lining had been changed 

(Brock) (figure 27). The Soldier complaints were fewer after this action was taken. The Soldiers 

liked the leader variation helmet and accepted the extra weight for the extended capability 

potential. 

Figure 26. Skydex impact liner. 
38 

Figure 27. Brock impact liner. 

Soldier comments on the helmet include the following: 

• The FFW is very hot; it allows air to flow through, but I think it is hotter than the IBA 

while I’m moving. 

• Need something to catch sweat from entering eyes. 

• Sweat a big problem, irritates the eyes while moving or in motion. 

• Helmets are hot; it is Georgia, and there is nothing you can do. 

3.3.4 Comparison of FFW and Baseline Equipment, Day 2 

The Likert scale means from the questionnaires were categorized with the system shown in 

table 17. Then the preferences of the FFW ensemble over the baseline are shown (tables 18 

through 22). 

Table 17. Categorization of the questions. 

Preference Difference 

Strong Preference > .99 

Moderate Preference .25 - .99 

No Clear Preference < .25 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the FFW system (table 18): 
39 

Table 18. Items of strong preference for the FFW ensemble. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Hot spots 3.88 5.50 -1.63 

Ability to breathe 4.50 6.13 -1.63 

Torso chafing in front 3.88 5.00 -1.13 

Neck/head chafing 4.88 6.00 -1.13 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.00 6.00 -1.00 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the FFW system (table 19): 

Table 19. Items of moderate preference for the FFW ensemble. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Torso chafing in back 4.75 5.63 -0.88 

Access to stowed items 5.25 6.13 -0.88 

Use of hand and arm signals 5.50 6.00 -0.50 

Overall comfort 4.25 4.75 -0.50 

Items for which there was no clear preference for either system (table 20): 

Table 20. Items with no clear preference. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with your weapon 5.50 5.75 -0.25 

Target identification 5.50 5.75 -0.25 

Ease of head movement 5.86 6.00 -0.14 

Ease of torso movement 5.00 5.13 -0.13 

Ease of arm movement 5.13 5.13 0.00 

Equipment snagging 5.25 5.25 0.00 

Pressure points 5.63 5.50 0.13 

Equipment pinching 4.75 4.63 0.13 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the baseline system (table 21): 

Table 21. Items with moderate preference for baseline. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.88 5.57 0.30 

Bruising on your body 5.63 5.25 0.38 

Move through swampy areas or streams 5.67 5.29 0.38 

Load adjustment 5.88 5.38 0.50 

Move through thick brush and vines 5.29 4.63 0.66 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.25 5.38 0.88 

Weight shifting 5.00 4.13 0.88 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the baseline system (table 22): 
40 

Table 22. Items with strong preference for baseline. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.13 4.88 1.25 

Equipment hindering movement 5.75 4.38 1.38 

Conducting IMT 5.00 3.50 1.50 

Ability to run 5.63 3.88 1.75 

Ease of leg movement 6.13 3.75 2.38 

3.3.5 Subject Matter Expert (SME) Observations 

During the Day 2 movement-to-contact activities, two subject matter experts (SMEs) 

accompanied the squad. These SMEs were also observing and collecting data for the patrols. 

Table 23 shows the SME observations and comments from the morning patrol and table 24 for 

the afternoon patrol. 

Table 23. SME observations, day 2, morning movement to contact. 

Day 2 Morning 

ID No. Comments 

1 Knee pads were too long and rubbed his shin. 

His torso was nice and cool, but arms were too hot. 

2 Ballistic belt offers some support to his back, but caused too many problems when used. 

3 Grenadier had problems keeping ballistic belt pulled up above his hips. 

Had to continuously pull belt up. 

He was not wearing suspenders, some were, but it was a request from Soldiers that the IPT did. 

Had problems with the weight of 40-mm rounds on his leg panels, weighed him down too much and 

hindered mobility. 

4 Had problems with helmet, it caught all the sweat and then at an inopportune time when he moved his 

head just right, the sweat would drain down into his eyes. 

He thought the zippered vents on the pants were a good idea, but allowed bugs access to his legs and 

groin. 

Weight of the SAW ammunition on the belt pulled it around when he got in prone. 

His knee pads were tight when he started but became loose and bothered him. 

Battery box under right arm caused loss of mobility and caused a lot of pain. His arm became numb. 

Did not mind the first aid kit under left arm because it was soft. 

Said the suspenders on the ballistic belt helped, but still too much weight on leg panels (SAW 

ammunition). 

5 Couldn’t unzip ventilation in pants because leg panels prohibited him from reaching the zippers. 

Didn’t like the leg panels, he was wearing them with a regular belt, no ballistic belt small enough to fit 

him. 

He did like the extra padding from the leg panels when going through thorn bushes. 
41 

Table 24. SME observations, day 2, afternoon movement to contact. 

Day 2 Afternoon 

ID No. Comments 

6 Battery under left arm pushed against bicep and changed weapon carry position. 

The battery kept his right arm too high. 

Ballistic belt must be kept high up to keep from pinching. 

Ballistic belt dropped down and caused pinching between belt and chassis. 

Pants and shirt too hot, but airflow under chassis is good. 

7 Used suspenders to keep ballistic belt up. 

It worked for awhile but belt started to fall down. 

Leg panels with 40-mm rounds too heavy and interfered with his mobility on assault. 

Right leg strap loosened on assault. 

Pants and shirt too hot, but airflow under chassis was good. 

8 Leg straps fell out of keepers on leg panels. 

Health hub wire broke off during assault. 

SAW drum under left arm bound on bicep. 

Will move SAW drum to leg panel. 

Liked his helmet better than his ACH. 

Good fit, stable, straps keep it in place. 

Liked the chin strap. 

Lateral strap on right side came loose during assault. 

Knee pads would not stay in place during movement. 

Straps holding side panels came loose during movement. 

9 Knee pads turned outward. 

Pinched between belt and chassis. 

Pants zipper chafed back of thighs and butt. 

Knee pads would not stay in place during movement. 

Straps holding side panels came loose during movement. 

3.3.6 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics, Day 2, Movement to Contact 

Table 25 shows the descriptive statistics for the 1-7 Likert scale items for baseline and FFW 

ensembles during movement-to-contact exercises on day 2. Paired samples t-tests were 

conducted on each of the questions. For t-values ≥1.00, partial eta squared (η2

p) was computed. 

This statistic provides an estimate of effect size; it is interpreted as the percent of variance in the 

dependent variable that is accounted for by the independent variable. Soldiers rated the baseline 

gear as being significantly better than the FFW equipment in terms of ease of leg movement: 

t(8)= 3.08, p = .015, η2

p = .54. There was also a significantly higher mean rating for the baseline 

equipment with regard to conducting IMT: t(6)= 3.67, p = .010, η2

p = .69. The FFW ensemble 

was rated significantly better than the baseline gear in terms of eliminating hot spots on the body 

(t(8)= 3.04, p = .016, η2

p = .54), access to stowed items (t(8) = 2.68, p - .028, η2p = .47), and 

ability to breathe (t(8) = 2.39, p = .044, η2

p = .42.) 
42 

Table 25. Descriptive statistics, Day 2, Movement to Contact. 

Baseline FFW t-tests 

Question Mean SD Mean SD t df p η2

p

Ease of leg movement 6.22 1.09 4.00 1.87 3.08 8 0.015 0.54 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.88 0.99 5.57 0.98 0.79 6 0.457 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.22 1.09 5.11 1.54 2.17 8 0.062 0.37 

Ease of arm movement 5.11 0.93 5.11 1.17 0.00 8 1.000 

Ease of torso movement 5.00 1.31 5.11 1.27 -0.28 7 0.785 

Ease of head movement 6.00 0.93 6.11 1.05 -0.23 7 0.826 

Ability to run 5.78 1.20 4.22 2.49 1.83 8 0.105 0.29 

Use of hand and arm signals 5.56 0.88 6.11 0.78 -1.47 8 0.179 0.21 

Move through swampy areas or streams 5.67 1.03 5.50 1.31 0.88 4 0.426 

Move through thick brush and vines 5.50 1.20 4.89 1.69 0.70 7 0.504 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with 

your weapon 5.67 1.22 5.89 1.27 -0.69 8 0.512 

Target identification 5.67 1.22 5.89 1.17 -0.39 8 0.708 

Conducting IMT 5.00 1.15 3.50 0.76 3.67 6 0.010 0.69 

Pressure points 5.78 1.56 5.67 1.41 0.14 8 0.892 

Hot spots 4.22 1.92 5.67 1.66 -3.04 8 0.016 0.54 

Bruising on your body 5.78 1.64 5.44 1.67 0.67 8 0.524 

Torso chafing in front 4.22 2.28 5.11 1.69 -1.45 8 0.184 0.21 

Torso chafing in back 5.00 2.18 5.78 1.30 -1.42 8 0.193 0.2 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.22 1.79 6.11 1.05 -1.36 8 0.212 0.19 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.33 1.00 5.33 1.50 2.00 8 0.081 0.33 

Equipment hindering movement 5.67 1.12 4.44 1.67 2.14 8 0.065 0.36 

Weight shifting 5.00 1.73 4.44 2.30 0.56 8 0.589 

Equipment pinching 5.00 1.73 4.89 2.09 0.14 8 0.894 

Load adjustment 5.78 1.30 5.56 1.24 0.30 8 0.772 

Access to stowed items 5.22 1.20 6.22 0.67 -2.68 8 0.028 0.47 

Ability to breathe 4.78 1.79 6.22 0.67 -2.39 8 0.044 0.42 

Overall comfort 4.22 1.64 4.78 0.83 -0.86 8 0.416 

Pain in upper back 5.89 1.27 5.67 1.22 0.36 8 0.729 

Pain in lower back 4.56 1.67 5.78 1.56 -1.28 8 0.236 0.17 

Pain in neck 5.44 1.33 6.44 0.88 -2.45 8 0.040 0.43 

Pain in head 5.89 1.54 6.89 0.33 -1.81 8 0.108 0.29 

Pain in torso front 5.44 1.81 5.78 1.64 -0.37 8 0.720 

Pain in groin 6.78 0.44 6.67 0.50 0.55 8 0.594 

Pain in legs 6.56 0.73 4.89 2.47 1.83 8 0.105 0.29 

Pain in arms 6.33 1.00 6.11 0.78 0.55 8 0.594 

Pain in eyes 6.89 0.33 6.56 0.73 1.15 8 0.282 0.14 

3.3.7 Movement to Contact, Day 4, Specific Results 

On day 4, the Soldiers were configured as similarly as possible. Each person (i.e., fire team 

leaders, grenadiers, etc.) wore the same equipment in both runs. Table 26 shows what each 

person wore for his fighting load. 
43 

Table 26. What the Soldiers wore, day 4. 

Position FFW BASE 

Team 

leader 

Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches/six magazines front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 One battery left side 

 Camelback10 left back side 

 Leader’s computer back 

 Battery right side 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

IBA with 

 First aid kit front 

 Three ammunition pouches with six 

magazines 

 One smoke front 

 Camel back 

Grenadier Soldier variation helmet with drop down 

Chassis with 

 Four 40-mm rounds right side 

 Four 40-mm rounds on left front 

 Four 40-mm rounds on right front 

 Three ammunition pouches lower front 

 SA display right front 

 CLS left side 

 One battery under left arm 

 Camel back 

 Computer lower back 

 One battery on right rear 

 One radio right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IBA with 

 Six 40-mm rounds front 

 Three ammunition pouches with six 

magazines 

 Four 40-mm rounds left side 

 IFAK back 

 Camel back 

 Two 40-mm rounds right side 

SAW Leader variation helmet with glasses 

Chassis with 

 Two 100-rd on belt left and right 

 Display right side 

 CLS left side 

 Battery lower back 

 Health hub beside battery 

 SA box lower right rear 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

Ballistic belt with suspenders 

ACH helmet 

Protective eye wear 

IBA with 

 First aid pouch upper left front 

 Four 100-rd ammunition lower front 

 Two grenade pouches upper front 

 Camel back 

Rifleman Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 Camel back 

 CLS back 

 Butt pack back 

 Health hub back 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IBA with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 Camel back 

 CLS back 

 10trade name
44 

The complete list of Soldier and SME comments is shown in appendix C. During this phase, the 

data were viewed as a sample size of two as discussed before (fire team leaders, grenadiers, etc.). 

When asked if there was anything that hindered their ability to complete basic tasks, the Soldiers 

responded as shown in table 27. 

Table 27. Mean responses to task completion. 

Mean Response 

Tasks FFW Baseline 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Ease of leg movement 6.50 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.50 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 

Ease of arm movement 5.50 5.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 6.00 

Ease of torso movement 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.50 

Ease of head movement 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 

Ability to run 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 5.50 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 

Move through thick brush and vines 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with 

your weapon 

6.50 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Target identification 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 

Conducting IMT 6.50 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 

The Soldiers’ comments included: 

FFW-G - Without the leg panels, I had no trouble at all moving through the brush or running, 

with putting all the gear on the chassis, it was a lot easier to move all around. 

FFW-R - The ballistic belt fell around the outside of my hips and restricted me from sprinting. 

BASELINE-AR - Try using some fog-resistant Rainex11 on eye protection to help reduce 

fogging and sweat buildup. 

Table 28 shows the mean responses from the Soldier questionnaires about problems they may 

have encountered. Most responses revealed very few problem areas. There were some minor 

problems shown in the chafing, hot spots, weight shifting, and pinching areas. Two of the 

Soldiers had a difficult time with pinching between the ballistic belt and the chassis. 

 11trade name used by Soldier
45 

Table 28. Mean responses to problem areas encountered. 

Mean Response 

Problem Areas FFW Baseline 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Pressure points 6.50 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 5.50 

Hot spots 6.50 4.50 5.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.00 5.50 

Bruising on your body 5.50 4.50 6.00 7.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Torso chafing in front 6.50 6.00 4.50 5.50 6.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 

Torso chafing in back 6.50 5.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 

Arm/shoulder chafing 4.00 4.50 6.50 7.00 5.00 5.50 6.50 6.00 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.50 4.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 

Neck/head chafing 6.00 4.00 6.50 5.50 6.50 6.00 7.00 5.50 

Equipment snagging 6.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 7.00 6.50 

Equipment hindering movement 6.00 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 

Weight shifting 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 5.50 4.50 

Equipment pinching 4.50 4.50 4.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.50 5.50 

Load adjustment 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Access to stowed items 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 5.50 7.00 4.50 6.50 

Ability to breathe 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.50 4.50 

Overall comfort 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 7.00 4.50 4.00 

The Soldiers’ comments include: 

FFW-FTL - Shoulder and belly panel hold in the heat and don’t let air flow. 

FFW-AR - Left leg knee pad rubbed 

 Lower back being rubbed by back belt. 

FFW-G – Four-strap heart monitor scratches the collar bone and side. 

 A few times, the belly armor and the chassis pinched the abdominal area, but it was 

nothing that was too uncomfortable. 

FFW-R - I have no complaints. 

 The flat heart monitor band scratched the side of my body under my left arm, back, and 

it rubbed my neck. 

BASELINE-AR - The two-strap heart strap stinks because it eats your neck away. 

Table 29 shows the mean responses to questions about whether the Soldiers encountered any pain. 
46 

Table 29. Mean response to pain levels. 

Mean Response 

Pain FFW Baseline 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Upper back 6.00 6.50 5.50 7.00 4.00 7.00 4.50 6.00 

Lower back 7.00 4.50 4.50 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.50 4.00 

Neck 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.50 4.50 5.50 7.00 4.50 

Head 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Torso front 7.00 6.50 4.50 6.50 5.00 5.50 7.00 6.00 

Groin 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 4.50 6.50 

Legs 7.00 6.50 6.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

Arms 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

Eyes 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

Soldier comments on pain levels include: 

FFW-FTL - Pinching between belt and vest. 

FFW-AR - Back was rubbed by belt. 

 Lower leg was rubbed by knee pad. 

FFW-G - Back pain is just from wearing the gear and getting used to how the weight is set up. 

None of the Soldiers reported problems with their equipment that prevented them from 

completing their mission or any thing that was unsafe about the equipment. 

When asked if they adjusted any of their equipment while en route to the objective, two 

responded “yes” for the FFW and two responded “yes” for the baseline. Their comments were 

FFW-AR - Electronics to the lower back. 

FFW-R - Abdomen plate prevented pinching. 

 Move the belt up, my belt didn’t have any suspenders. 

BASELINE-AR - The glasses got too sweaty, I stuck them in my vest. 

BASELINE-R - Shifted my IBA around on my shoulders. 

The Soldiers had no problems reaching their magazines, but two reported difficulty returning the 

magazines to the ammunition pouches. 

The Soldiers had very few problems donning and doffing the FFW chassis. Most of the 

problems centered on latching the chassis. Only one Soldier stated he would wear the neck-up 

armor on any type of mission and that was a defensive only mission. The Soldiers really disliked 

the neck-up armor after they wore it. All thought the neck-up armor was too uncomfortable and 

retained heat. There were also several comments about the “stock lock” and the uselessness of it. 

All but one Soldier disliked the “stock lock” and recommended getting rid of it. 
47 

One fire team leader had problems with the wiring running from his chassis to his helmet. 

Sometime during day 4 activities, the wire connection was broken (figure 28). He had the same 

problems during the MOUT activities. 

Figure 28. Broken connector. 

3.3.8 Comparison of FFW and Baseline Equipment, Day 4 

The Likert scale means from the questionnaires were categorized with the system shown in 

table 30. Then the preferences of the FFW ensemble over the baseline are shown (tables 31 

through 32). 

Table 30. Categorization of the questions. 

Preference Difference 

Strong Preference > .99 

Moderate Preference .25 - .99 

No Clear Preference < .25 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the FFW system (table 31): 
48 

Table 31. Items of moderate preference for the FFW ensemble. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Access to stowed items 5.88 6.50 -0.63 

Ability to breathe 5.88 6.50 -0.63 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6.20 6.80 -0.60 

Overall comfort 5.25 5.75 -0.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.38 6.75 -0.38 

Items for which there was no strong preference for either system (table 32): 

Table 32. Items with no clear preference. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Move through thick brush and vines 6.13 6.38 -0.25 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with your weapon 6.38 6.63 -0.25 

Torso chafing in front 5.38 5.63 -0.25 

Weight shifting 5.75 6.00 -0.25 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.25 6.43 -0.18 

Ease of torso movement 6.00 6.13 -0.13 

Pressure points 6.13 6.25 -0.13 

Hot spots 5.75 5.88 -0.13 

Ease of head movement 6.50 6.50 0.00 

Ease of leg movement 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Target identification 6.75 6.63 0.13 

Torso chafing in back 6.38 6.25 0.13 

Equipment snagging 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Load adjustment 6.63 6.50 0.13 

Ease of arm movement 6.25 6.00 0.25 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.75 5.50 0.25 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the baseline system (table 33): 

Table 33. Items with moderate preference for baseline. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Equipment hindering movement 6.63 6.25 0.38 

Conducting IMT 6.67 6.17 0.50 

Ability to run 6.63 5.88 0.75 

Bruising on your body 6.50 5.75 0.75 

Neck/head chafing 6.25 5.50 0.75 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the baseline system (table 34): 

Table 34. Items with strong preference for baseline. 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.63 5.63 1.00 

Equipment pinching 6.13 5.13 1.00 
49 

3.3.9 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics, Day 4 Movement to Contact 

As in the day 2 results, the FFW equipment was preferred with regard to the ability to breathe, 

access to stowed items, use of hand and arm signals, and overall comfort. Unlike the day 2 

results, the FFW gear was slightly preferred for moving over rough terrain. 

The baseline equipment was preferred over the FFW gear on most of the questions concerning 

movement: the ability to run, conducting IMT, leg/thigh chafing, and equipment pinching and 

hindering movement. 

Table 35 shows the descriptive statistics for the 1-7 Likert scale questions used to evaluate the 

baseline and FFW ensembles. The results of paired samples t-tests are also included in the table. 

There was one significant pair-wise comparison: the FFW equipment was rated as significantly 

more comfortable than the baseline gear in terms of pain to the front of the torso: t(7) = 2.50, 

p = .041, η2

p = 0.47. 

Table 35. Likert scale questionnaire statistics, day 4, movement to contact. 

Baseline FFW t-tests 

Question Mean SD Mean SD t df p η2

p

Ease of leg movement 6.50 1.07 6.38 0.92 0.22 7 0.836 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.25 1.04 6.43 0.79 -1.00 6 0.356 0.14 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.50 0.53 6.38 0.74 0.55 7 0.598 

Ease of arm movement 6.25 0.71 6.00 1.07 0.80 7 0.451 

Ease of torso movement 6.00 0.93 6.13 1.13 -0.28 7 0.785 

Ease of head movement 6.50 0.53 6.50 0.76 0.00 7 1.000 

Ability to run 6.63 0.74 5.88 1.25 1.53 7 0.170 0.25 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.38 0.74 6.75 0.46 -2.05 7 0.080 0.38 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6.20 1.30 6.80 0.45 -1.00 3 0.391 0.25 

Move through thick brush and vines 6.13 0.83 6.38 0.74 -1.00 7 0.351 0.13 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with 

your weapon 6.38 0.74 6.63 0.52 -1.00 7 0.351 0.13 

Target identification 6.75 0.46 6.63 0.74 0.55 7 0.598 

Conducting IMT 6.67 0.52 6.17 1.17 0.59 4 0.587 

Pressure points 6.13 1.13 6.25 1.16 -0.20 7 0.850 

Hot spots 5.75 1.58 5.88 1.13 -0.18 7 0.862 

Bruising on your body 6.50 0.76 5.75 1.16 1.34 7 0.222 0.21 

Torso chafing in front 5.38 2.07 5.63 1.77 -0.51 7 0.626 

Torso chafing in back 6.38 0.74 6.25 1.04 0.28 7 0.785 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.75 1.16 5.50 1.60 0.68 7 0.516 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.63 0.52 5.63 1.30 2.00 7 0.086 0.36 

Neck/head chafing 6.25 0.89 5.50 1.77 1.82 7 0.111 0.32 

Equipment snagging 6.50 0.76 6.38 0.74 0.42 7 0.685 

Equipment hindering movement 6.63 0.52 6.25 0.89 1.43 7 0.197 0.22 

Weight shifting 5.75 1.28 6.00 1.07 -0.33 7 0.749 

Equipment pinching 6.13 1.36 5.13 1.81 1.28 7 0.240 0.19 

Ability to breathe 5.88 1.55 6.50 0.76 -1.05 7 0.329 0.14 

Overall comfort 5.25 1.28 5.75 0.89 -0.73 7 0.487 

Pain in upper back 5.88 1.36 6.25 0.89 -0.66 7 0.528 

Pain in lower back 5.50 1.77 5.75 1.58 -0.25 7 0.812 

Pain in neck 5.38 1.41 6.13 1.46 -1.21 7 0.265 0.17 

Pain in head 6.50 0.76 6.88 0.35 -1.16 7 0.285 0.16 

Pain in torso front 5.25 1.67 6.13 1.73 -2.50 7 0.041* 0.47 

Pain in groin 6.63 0.74 7.00 0.00 -1.43 7 0.197 0.22 

Pain in legs 6.63 0.74 6.63 0.74 0.00 7 1.000 

Pain in arms 6.63 0.74 6.88 0.35 -0.80 7 0.451 

Pain in eyes 6.63 0.74 7.00 0.00 -1.43 7 0.197 0.22 

* p < .05, 2-tailed
50 

The pattern of results across the two days of movement-to-contact exercise suggests that there 

was a learning curve with respect to the Soldiers’ mobility in the FFW ensemble (table 36). 

There was a substantial increase in average Likert scale ratings for the FFW gear from days 2 to 

4. This increase occurred for all four duty positions. The increase was most notable on the 

questions regarding ease of movement of the lower body. 

Table 36. Comparison of FFW gear, days 2 and 4. 

Question n Day 2 Day 4 

Ease of leg movement 8 3.75 6.38 

Ease of assuming prone position 7 5.57 6.43 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 8 4.88 6.38 

Ability to run 8 3.88 5.88 

Move through thick brush and vines 8 4.63 6.38 

Conducting IMT 8 3.50 6.17 

Equipment hindering movement 8 4.38 6.25 

Overall comfort 8 4.75 5.75 

Mean 4.42 6.20 

There was also an increase in Likert ratings for lower body movement for the baseline gear but 

not as large as the increase for FFW gear (table 37): 

Table 37. Comparison of baseline gear, days 2 and 4. 

Question n Day 2 Day 4 

Ease of leg movement 8 6.13 6.50 

Ease of assuming prone position 8 5.88 6.25 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 8 6.13 6.50 

Ability to run 8 5.63 6.63 

Move through thick brush & vines 8 5.29 6.13 

Conducting IMT 6 5.00 6.67 

Equipment hindering movement 8 5.75 6.63 

Overall comfort 8 4.25 5.25 

Mean 5.50 6.32 

Figure 29 shows the comparison of days 2 and 4 for the Soldiers’ responses to FFW and their 

ability to move. 

Figure 30 shows the comparison of days 2 and 4 for the Soldiers’ responses to baseline and their 

ability to move. 

There was an improvement over the Soldiers’ reported ability to move using both the FFW 

ensemble and their baseline fighting loads. However, there was a noticeable difference in 

improvement with the FFW ensemble day 4 over day 2. This is a strong indication that the 

Soldiers were becoming more comfortable with the FFW ensemble on the third day of wear. To 

better evaluate this, an extended operational experiment involving multiple day wear and greater 

distances of movement will be required. 
51 

Movement Ratings

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

Leg

Prone

Kneel

Run

Brush

IMT

Hinder

Comfort

Mean

Day 2

Day 4

Figure 29. Soldiers’ ratings of FFW and effects of movement. 

Baseline Gear: 

Movement Ratings

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

Leg

Prone

Kneel

Run

Brush

IMT

Hinder

Comfort

Mean

Day 2

Day 4

Figure 30. Soldiers’ ratings of baseline and effects of movement. 
52 

3.4 MOUT Operations, Day 3 

3.4.1 MOUT Operations, Room Clearing, Day 3 

When the Soldiers arrived at Eiler Hall, they were shown the area and the rooms and loft they 

would be clearing for this event. They were then given a FRAGO and an order of operation 

matrix (table 4). The Soldiers were instructed what to wear on the three different configurations 

(baseline, FFW with belt, and FFW up armor), and the equipment worn in the morning by the 

Fire Team B was the same as the equipment worn by the Fire Team A in the afternoon. 

Figures 31 through 34 show the fire team configurations by position and configurations. 

Figure 31. Team leaders and grenadiers (baseline and FFW). 
53 

Figure 32. Riflemen and SAW gunners (baseline and FFW). 

Figure 33. Team leader and grenadier (“up” armor). 
54 

Figure 34. Rifleman and SAW gunner (“up” armor). 

3.4.2 Specific Results, Day 3 

The complete results of the Soldier questionnaires are shown in appendix D. Table 38 shows the 

descriptive responses to the questions of the Soldiers’ abilities to complete specific tasks 

expressed in a mean for the three configurations worn. The Soldiers reported difficulty in 

completing the tasks of running, movement through mouse holes, and movement through one of 

three breach holes with both the FFW configurations (figure 35). 
55 

Table 38. Soldiers’ mean response to task completion. 

Mean Response Tasks FFW with 

Belt 

FFW with 

Up Armor 

Baseline 

Ease of leg movement 5.12 5.00 5.88 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.33 4.00 6.25 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.80 5.00 6.33 

Ease of arm movement 5.50 5.13 6.00 

Ease of torso movement 5.75 5.38 5.50 

Ease of head movement 5.75 3.13 5.75 

Ability to run 4.75 4.29 6.13 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.33 5.17 6.00 

Move through doorways 5.75 5.38 5.75 

Move through mouse holes 4.50 4.00 5.43 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.63 5.50 6.00 

Ability to engage enemy 5.88 5.50 6.25 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.25 6.25 

Move through windows 4.00 3.25 6.00 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.00 4.50 6.67 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.00 5.88 6.13 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position) 5.71 5.25 5.63 

Figure 35. Soldier entering building. 
56 

They rated the FFW with up armor slightly worse. They also reported a worse than average 

ability to move their heads with the FFW with up armor (figure 36). 

Figure 36. Neck-up armor, head movement. 

Soldier comments on their ability to complete tasks include: 

A-FFW WITH BELT 

• Can’t run well with the drop armor on the legs. 

• Pants are ridiculously hot; I would rather fight naked but could be good for fall and winter. 

• Knee pads bothering me today, some chafing in the calves. 

• Leg panels restrict speed. 

• Legs being restricted when running. 

B-FFW WITH UP-ARMOR KIT 

• “Dog collar” does not allow me to look up. Blocks ventilation and traps heat in more. 

• My situational awareness was decreased because of the addition of the neck collar. It gave 

me an enclosed feeling. 

• Neck brace prevents me from moving my neck. 
57 

• The neck guard takes away from the mobility of the head, but it would be good for a 50 cal. 

gunner. I didn’t like the shoulder or gut plate. 

• Up armor for turrets only. 

C-BASELINE 

• Heart monitor too bulky for the IBA.

• My heart monitor opened my IBA up.

• The IBA is pretty constraining to mobility.

Table 39 shows the mean responses from the Soldier questionnaires about problems they may 

have encountered. Most responses revealed very few problem areas. However, the Soldiers 

reported difficulty with the equipment hindering movement, ability to breathe, and overall 

comfort with the FFW up-armor configuration. They also reported that the baseline caused 

chafing in back, interfered with their ability to breathe, and armor prevented flexing. 

Table 39. Mean responses to problem areas encountered. 

Mean Response Tasks FFW with 

Belt 

FFW with 

Up Armor 

Baseline 

Pressure points 6.25 6.25 6.00 

Hot spots 5.63 5.50 5.86 

Bruising on your body 5.88 5.50 5.43 

Torso chafing in front 5.88 5.75 4.50 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 5.63 5.29 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.88 4.88 5.71 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.63 5.63 5.83 

Neck/head chafing 6.38 5.37 5.71 

Equipment snagging 6.50 5.00 5.71 

Equipment hindering movement 5.63 3.88 6.29 

Weight shifting 6.13 6.25 5.29 

Equipment pinching 5.38 5.63 5.14 

Load adjustment 5.75 6.00 5.71 

Access to stowed items 5.88 6.00 5.86 

Ability to breathe 5.75 4.88 4.33 

Overall comfort 5.25 4.13 4.57 

Armor preventing flexing 6.00 5.38 4.86 

Soldier comments include: 

A-FFW WITH BELT 

• Bottom of shin guard rubbed my shin and it’s starting to become sensitive. 

• I had a little rubbing of my neck and thighs and a slight discomfort from the straps. 
58 

• Fix the pants, way too hot, but the ventilation in the chassis is the one really good thing you 

have going. 

• Shoulder straps rubbing collar bone. 

• Vest makes it hard to breathe because it is tight around the upper body. 

B-FFW WITH UP ARMOR KIT 

• Dog collar restricts head movement with leader helmet. 

• I do not like the neck piece. 

• The neck “up armor” was just too constraining to movement. 

• Torso chafing once again with Hidalgo heart monitor. 

• Movement is slightly restricted by leg panels. 

C-BASELINE 

• Heart monitor was pressed against skin by IBA. 

• Medic strap pushed in my chest with the IBA on it. Also hurts me on breathing. 

• The heart monitor was definitely pressing down on my chest under the IBA. 

• The IBA tends to shift from shoulder to shoulder. 

When asked if any of the equipment hindered their ability to complete the mission, four Soldiers 

wearing the FFW up armor stated “yes” (figure 37), and two with the FFW with belt stated 

“yes”. All wearing the baseline responded “no”. Their comments include: 

A-FFW WITH BELT 

• My drop armor slowed my run big time. 

• The stack was way too big moving on the building while running. 

• I couldn’t run as fast as normal because of the drop leg. 

B-FFW WITH UP ARMOR KIT 

• Dog collar stops head movement and neck movement. 

• Neck “up armor” just took away from situational awareness. 
59 

Figure 37. Fire team, wall stack. 

Several Soldiers reported that the addition of a drop bag to place empty magazines contributed to 

their being able to complete the mission (figure 38). The Soldiers liked the idea of a drop bag, 

especially with the tight openings on the magazine pouches. Many have adopted a makeshift 

drop bag for use with their baseline equipment on a daily basis. 

Figure 38. Drop bag. 
60 

One Soldier believed that the restriction that the FFW with belt placed on him was unsafe as he 

“could not run; could not hide”. Another Soldier believed that the FFW with up-armor was 

unsafe because the neck-up armor restricted his ability to acquire targets. 

When asked if there were any items on the FFW chassis that they would move if able, more than 

half the Soldiers stated they would move some of the equipment. These included 

A-FFW WITH BELT 

• All electronics to the back except the little display screen. 

• For guys with bigger upper bodies, I would widen the shoulder part of the chassis. 

• Medical computer. 

• The batteries. 

B-FFW WITH UP-ARMOR KIT 

• Batteries. 

• Medical monitor. 

The Soldiers disliked the neck-up armor kit (figure 39) and stated that the only mission during 

which they would consider wearing it was in a defensive position or on convoy operations. 

Wearing the neck “up armor” was especially recommended for the gunner, who is more exposed 

than the rest of the vehicle crew. Several of the Soldiers commented verbally that the neck-up 

armor held heat in and deflected the heat from their exhaled breath down into their body, causing 

even more heat buildup. 

Figure 39. Neck-up armor. 
61 

All Soldiers reported no difficulty accessing their first aid kit. Two Soldiers reported difficulty 

donning and doffing the FFW with up armor. These complaints came from the difficulty in 

donning and doffing the neck-up armor. They also reported difficulty with the chassis latching 

system but less on day 3 than day 2. Several reported they asked the IPTs to file the latching 

systems to allow easier latching. 

Most of the Soldiers liked the shoulder- and abdomen-up armor and stated they would wear them 

in most missions. However, there was a strong dislike of the neck-up armor, and only three of 

the nine Soldiers would wear the neck-up armor and then only in defensive missions. They also 

reported much difficulty with donning the neck armor. The neck collar needs some design 

modifications before it will be accepted by the Soldiers. 

When asked what they would change if they could, the Soldiers responded with 

A-FFW WITH BELT 

• I would put the interior pads in the IBA to create ventilation and ditch the rest, especially 

the pants which get more and more uncomfortable by the day. 

• I like the air flow. 

B-FFW WITH UP ARMOR KIT 

• I like the shoulder and gut plates. 

• Lose the dog collar. 

• Stack all the electronic equipment in the back; that way, you have more room to stow other 

equipment. 

• Shoulder and lower abdomen “up armor” are good; the neck is not good for dismounted 

Soldiers. 

3.4.3 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics: Room Clearing 

Table 40 shows the means and standard deviations for the room clearing questions. Repeated 

measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the questionnaire data are summarized in table 41. 

There were three statistically significant ANOVAs. There was a significant difference among 

means for ease of leg movement (F(2,12) = 3.96, p = .048, η2

p = .40.) An ensuing comparison 

using Dunnett’s test indicates a significant difference between the baseline and the two FFW 

conditions; for both comparisons, t(6) = 2.43, p < .05, one-tailed. The baseline gear was 

preferred over the two FFW ensembles in terms of ease of leg movement. For ease of arm 

movement, F(2,12) = 4.61, p = .033, η2

p = .43. The Dunnett’s ensuing comparisons show that 

the baseline gear was rated significantly higher than the FFW up-armor kit: t(6) = 3.02, p < .05, 

two-tailed. The difference in ratings between the FFW with belt and the baseline configurations 

was not statistically significant. For the question about head movement, there was a significant 
62 

ANOVA: F(2,12) = 16.4, p < .001, η2

p = .73. Dunnett’s ensuing comparisons show that the uparmor kit had a significantly lower rating than the baseline configuration: t(6) = 5.21, p < .01, 

two-tailed. In summary, the FFW up-armor kit was rated significantly lower than the baseline 

gear for leg, arm, and head movement. 

Table 40. Summary statistics questionnaire data, room clearing. 

Baseline FFW w/Belt 

FFW Up 

Armor 

Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

Ease of leg movement 5.88 1.13 5.13 1.46 5.00 1.20 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.25 0.96 5.33 1.15 4.00 1.41 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.33 0.82 5.80 1.10 5.00 1.58 

Ease of arm movement 6.00 1.20 5.50 0.93 5.13 1.36 

Ease of torso movement 5.50 1.51 5.75 0.71 5.38 1.06 

Ease of head movement 5.75 1.28 5.75 0.71 3.13 1.25 

Ability to run 6.13 1.36 4.75 2.25 4.29 1.60 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.00 1.15 6.33 0.52 5.17 0.98 

Move through doorways 5.75 1.28 5.75 1.16 5.38 0.92 

Move through mouse holes 5.43 1.51 4.50 1.64 4.00 1.58 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 6.00 1.20 5.63 1.06 5.50 1.07 

Ability to engage enemy 6.25 0.89 5.88 0.83 5.50 1.41 

Conducting IMT 6.25 0.96 6.00 0.00 5.25 0.96 

Move through windows 6.00 1.41 4.00 2.31 3.25 2.06 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.67 0.58 6.00 0.00 4.50 1.29 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.13 1.13 6.00 0.76 5.88 0.99 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure 

position 5.63 1.30 5.71 0.95 5.25 1.28 

Pressure points 6.00 1.15 6.25 1.04 6.25 1.16 

Hot spots 5.86 1.35 5.63 1.19 5.50 1.51 

Bruising on your body 5.43 1.40 5.88 1.25 5.50 1.85 

Torso chafing in front 4.50 2.26 5.88 1.36 5.75 1.16 

Torso chafing in back 5.29 2.36 6.00 1.41 5.63 1.30 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.71 0.95 5.88 1.36 4.88 1.89 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.83 0.98 5.63 1.30 5.63 1.06 

Neck/head chafing 5.71 1.25 6.38 0.52 5.38 1.60 

Equipment snagging 5.71 0.95 6.50 0.76 5.00 2.33 

Equipment hindering movement 6.29 0.76 5.63 1.85 3.88 1.73 

Weight shifting 5.29 1.60 6.13 1.13 6.25 1.04 

Equipment pinching 5.14 1.57 5.38 1.77 5.63 1.77 

Load adjustment 5.71 1.11 5.75 1.28 6.00 1.20 

Access to stowed items 5.86 0.69 5.88 1.13 6.00 0.93 

Ability to breathe 4.33 1.86 5.75 1.75 4.88 1.89 

Overall comfort 4.57 0.79 5.25 1.04 4.13 1.25 

Armor preventing flexing 4.86 1.57 6.00 1.07 5.38 1.41 
63 

Table 41. Repeated measures ANOVAs, room clearing questionnaires. 

Question F df p η2

p

Ease of leg movement 3.96 2,12 0.048* 0.40 

Ease of assuming prone position x x x x 

Ease of assuming kneeling position < 1.00 2,4 0.605 0.22 

Ease of arm movement 4.61 2,12 0.033* 0.43 

Ease of torso movement 1.28 2,12 0.313 0.18 

Ease of head movement 16.4 2,12 < .001* 0.73 

Ability to run 2.1 2,10 0.173 0.3 

Use of hand and arm signals 3.18 2,8 0.096 0.44 

Move through doorways 1.03 2,12 0.382 0.15 

Move through mouse holes 1.04 2,4 0.432 0.34 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 2.92 2,12 0.092 0.33 

Ability to engage enemy 2.4 2,12 0.133 0.29 

Conducting IMT x x x x 

Move through windows x x x x 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs x x x x 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 1.97 2,12 0.183 0.25 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position < 1.00 2,10 0.416 0.16 

Pressure points < 1.00 2,10 0.538 0.12 

Hot spots < 1.00 2,10 0.974 < .01 

Bruising on your body < 1.00 2,10 0.513 0.12 

Torso chafing in front 2.63 2,8 0.133 0.4 

Torso chafing in back 1.19 2,10 0.345 0.19 

Arm/shoulder chafing 3.64 2,10 0.065 0.42 

Leg/thigh chafing 1 2,10 0.402 0.17 

Neck/head chafing 1.39 2,10 0.294 0.22 

Equipment snagging 3.61 2,10 0.066 0.42 

Equipment hindering movement 2.69 2,10 0.116 0.35 

Weight shifting < 1.00 2,10 0.613 0.09 

Equipment pinching < 1.00 2,10 0.79 0.05 

Load adjustment < 1.00 2,10 0.917 0.02 

Access to stowed items < 1.00 2,10 0.819 0.04 

Ability to breathe 1.7 2,8 0.243 0.3 

Overall comfort 2.22 2,10 0.159 0.31 

Armor preventing flexing 1.23 2,10 0.332 20 

p < .05 

x = insufficient data 

3.4.4 FFW Helmet Assembly 

During the MOUT activities, the Soldiers had little or no pain while wearing the two FFW helmets. 

One Soldier had difficulty adjusting the helmet to his head and another had some difficulty and 

pain with the ear plugs. There were some complaints of heat buildup and perspiration problems 

but not as much as the day before. There was an indication that the Soldiers were becoming 

accustomed to the helmets (see appendix D). One Soldier stated that he liked the FFW helmet 

more than his current ACH. 

3.4.5 Room Excursion 

When the Soldiers were allowed to configure the FFW systems to their own liking, few problems 

were encountered (table 42). They rated their ability to complete tasks as very to extremely easy 

(appendix D). Their comments included 

• Everything was extremely comfortable, allowing for smooth mission execution. 
64 

• I got rid of the leg panels and positioned everything on the chassis; I moved more freely 

and a lot faster and smoother. 

• Movement was great for all in team. 

• Moving the battery to the back right of vest was great. I wouldn’t change it. 

• Got rid of the leg panels and positioned all rounds on front of chassis. 

• The way we were allowed to configure helped 100%. 

Table 42. FFW configuration for room excursion. 

Grenadier B No. 7 

Did not wear neck protection or leg panels 

Why: 

Neck protection is hot and covers mouth 

when in a crouching position. 

Hampers breathing and interferes with air 

flow (hot). 

Leg panels slow my movement. 

Would only wear if there was no place else 

to store equipment. 

How Configured: 

Move 40-mm rounds to the sides and front 

of vest. Move magazines to middle front 

of vest. 

Move PDA panel to chest protector. 

Grenadier A No. 3 

Did not wear neck protection and leg 

panels. 

Why: 

Neck protection restricts my head 

movement too much. 

Leg panels are neat to carry ammunition, 

but they restrict my movement too much, 

especially while running. 

How Configured: 

Move 40-mm rounds to side and front of 

vest and some on belt. Put three magazines 

in front on vest. 

SAW B No. 8 

No up armor at all 

Why: 

Interfered with head movement and too hot 

How Configured: 

Chassis with belt and suspenders. 

SAW ammunition pouches on belt 

First Aid 

Move electronics to back, 

Smoke and frags on front of vest. 

Open all zippers for ventilation. 

SAW A No. 4 

No neck protection 

Why: 

Too hot, restricts movement. 

How configured: 

Chassis 

Up armor shoulder pad 

Up armor leg panels – drum pouches on 

each 

First aid kit on left leg panel. 

Move electronics from under arm to back. 

Would add more drums to belt for more 

ammunition. 

Smoke on vest. 

Rifleman No. 9 

No up armor. 

Why: Too hot, restricts movement. 

How Configured: 

Remove left leg panel. 

Remove ballistic belt. 

Move CLS bag to upper rear. 

Keep right leg panel. 

Rifleman No. 5 

No Neck protection. 

Why: Too hot. 

How Configured: 

Liked everything except the neck collar. 

Did not move any pouches. 

Wanted suspenders for the ballistic belt. 

BTL No. 6 

Did not like the location of the battery; it 

irritated his bicep and his movement. He 

would move it to the back of the chassis or 

reshape the batteries so they would not be 

as bulky. 

Would wear all up armor in MOUT except 

the neck armor. 

Would never wear neck armor, restricts 

head movement, retains heat, breath comes 

back into face and fogs goggles. 

For one room clearing known situation 

would wear chassis only, trade speed, 

flexibility and coolness for protection. 

ATL No. 2 

In urban environment would use chassis 

only because belt was so uncomfortable 

and he never used his leg panels to carry 

equipment or ammunition. 

Leader’s radio (left side) interferes with 

movement. 

Wanted more ammunition. 

Move radio to right front of chassis. 

Add more ammunition on front of chassis. 

Move IFAK to right rear of chassis. 
65 

3.4.6 MOUT Operations, Loft Clearing, Day 3 

The loft clearing was conducted concurrently with the room clearing operations as shown in 

table 4. The task required the fire team to move as quickly as possible up a makeshift ladder and 

through a small opening to gain access to a loft area (figure 40). 

Figure 40. Fire team clearing loft. 

The times to accomplish this task are shown in table 43. When fire teams A and B were wearing 

the FFW up armor, it took fire team A 24 seconds longer to complete the task than fire team B, 

and it took fire team A 7 seconds longer with the FFW and belt. 

Table 43. Times to enter and exit the loft. 

Iteration Fire Team Mission Configuration Loft Time In Loft Time out 

3 A Loft Up Armor 1:24:72 1:36:50 

4 B Loft FFW with belt 1:07:24 1:35:50 

7 A Loft FFW with belt 1:14:21 1:52:69 

8 B Loft Up Armor 1:00:06 1:42:56 

11 A Loft Base 1:07:78 1:42:56 

12 B Loft Base 1:08:93 1:15:84 
66 

When the teams completed the tasks, they completed the questionnaires. Their mean responses 

when asked about their ability to complete standard tasks are shown in table 44. The responses 

are very similar to the problems encountered with the room-clearing operations. The Soldiers 

had difficulty with moving through small holes and seeing with the up-armor option. It is 

surprising that their difficulty with movement through small holes was more pronounced in the 

FFW with belt option than with the FFW with up-armor option. 

Table 44. Soldiers’ mean responses to ability to complete tasks. 

Mean Response Tasks FFW with 

Belt 

FFW with UpArmor Kit Baseline 

Ease of leg movement 4.88 5.50 6.13 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.50 4.75 6.33 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.71 6.00 6.17 

Ease of arm movement 5.63 5.63 6.13 

Ease of torso movement 5.88 6.00 5.63 

Ease of head movement 6.13 4.13 6.13 

Ability to run 5.12 4.63 6.00 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.17 5.67 5.86 

Move through doorways 5.71 5.75 5.88 

Move through mouse holes 2.88 3.63 4.50 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.14 6.25 5.88 

Ability to engage enemy 5.29 5.17 6.29 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.75 5.83 

Move through windows 4.00 3.50 5.75 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 4.29 4.38 5.71 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.25 6.13 6.13 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position) 5.00 5.13 5.75 

The Soldiers’ comments on ability to complete tasks include 

FFW WITH BELT 

• Going through narrow doorways is hard because side of chassis a little bulky. 

• Leg straps came undone somewhere along the mission. 

• Got snagged up in the window. 

• In the mouse hole of the loft, had problems getting through. Battery kept getting stuck on 

way out and on way in, sides of chassis got stuck. 

• When I went through the mouse hole, the CLS bag caught. 

• The weight makes it harder to maintain a crouched position for an extended period of time. 

FFW WITH UP-ARMOR KIT 

• Neck guard stopped head movement (two Soldiers made the same comment). 
67 

BASELINE 

• Going into the loft with the RFI (rapid fielding initiative) on was no problem; nothing got 

snagged like the FFW gear. 

• The gear is in front so movement through small spaces is a lot easier. 

Table 45 shows the mean responses the Soldiers had for problem areas they might have encountered. They had similar responses for the room-clearing activity. The Soldiers continued to have 

problems with equipment hindering movement and weight shifting with the FFW ensembles. 

Table 45. Soldiers’ mean responses to problem areas encountered. 

Mean Response Problem Areas FFW with 

Belt 

FFW with Up 

Armor Kit 

Baseline 

Pressure points 5.00 5.88 6.29 

Hot spots 5.75 6.13 6.29 

Bruising on your body 6.25 5.25 5.71 

Torso chafing in front 5.71 5.75 5.29 

Torso chafing in back 5.75 5.75 6.00 

Arm/shoulder chafing 6.00 4.88 5.57 

Leg/thigh chafing 4.88 5.37 6.29 

Neck/head chafing 5.38 4.75 5.29 

Equipment snagging 5.63 4.25 5.29 

Equipment hindering movement 3.75 4.00 4.86 

Weight shifting 3.88 6.00 5.57 

Equipment pinching 6.25 5.38 6.00 

Load adjustment 5.25 6.13 6.00 

Access to stowed items 6.25 6.00 6.33 

Ability to breathe 6.25 5.00 4.00 

Overall comfort 6.13 5.00 5.00 

Armor preventing flexing 4.75 5.75 5.14 

Soldiers’ comments on the problem areas encountered include: 

FFW WITH BELT 

• Cannot breathe in well. 

• Chafing is due to Hidalgo heart monitor. 

• Equipment just snagged on mouse hole to loft. 

• Shoulder straps starting to be irritating to shoulders. 

• Equipment snagging in little cubby doorways. 

FFW WITH UP-ARMOR KIT 

• Chafing is from Hidalgo heart monitor.

• Leg panels snagged through the loft.
68 

• Medical computer needs to be moved.

• Neck “up armor” got in the way.

• We got caught going through the mouse hole because of our size.

BASELINE 

• Heart monitor stinks when I’m wearing IBA. Too much rubbing 

• Medic belt pushes in on chest. 

• Hard to get through hole with IBA. 

Six of the Soldiers had difficulty in completing their mission while wearing the FFW ensembles. 

Their comments include 

FFW WITH BELT 

• Going through the loft entry, I got stuck in the hole. 

• Leg restriction. 

• Vest too wide for small openings. 

FFW WITH UP ARMOR KIT 

• Dog collar.

• Neck guard and CLS bag snagged going through the hole.

• Neck guard gives limited range of head neck movement.

BASELINE 

• My butt pack snagged when I climbed the stairs to get through the mouse hole. 

A complete list of Soldier comments and SME comments is presented in appendix D. 

3.4.7 Likert Scale Questionnaire Statistics: Loft Clearing 

Table 46 shows the means and standard deviations for each of the 1-7 Likert scale questions 

administered after each of the three treatment conditions in the loft-clearing exercise. A repeated 

measures ANOVA was conducted for each question (table 47). There was a statistically significant F-value for four of the questions. For ease of head movement, F(2,14) = 6.58, p = .010, 

η2

p = .48. Ensuing pair-wise comparisons indicate that the FFW up-armor kit received a significantly lower mean rating than either the baseline gear or the FFW with belt ensemble (table 48). 

For the question about moving through mouse holes, F(2,14) = 7.35, p = .007, η2

p = .51. Ensuing 

comparisons (table 49) indicate that the FFW with belt kit was rated significantly lower than the 

baseline gear. There was also a significant ANOVA for ability to conduct reflexive shooting: 
69 

F(2,14) = 4.67, p = .032, η2

p = .44. As shown in table 50, no significant pair-wise differences 

emerged from the ensuing comparisons. The non-significant trend was that the FFW with uparmor kit received the highest mean rating, while the FFW with belt received the lowest mean 

rating. Finally, there was a statistically significant ANOVA for the question about ability to 

breathe (table 51): F(2,14) = 4.69, p = .031, η2

p = .44. The ensuing comparisons yielded no 

significant pair-wise differences, although there was a trend for baseline to have the lowest rating 

and FFW with belt to have the highest rating. 

Table 46. Summary statistics questionnaire data, loft clearing. 

Baseline FFW with Belt FFW Up Armor 

Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

Ease of leg movement 6.13 1.13 4.88 1.36 5.50 1.51 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.33 0.58 5.50 1.00 4.75 2.06 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.17 1.17 5.71 0.95 6.00 1.55 

Ease of arm movement 6.13 0.83 5.63 1.19 5.63 1.30 

Ease of torso movement 5.63 1.30 5.88 0.83 6.00 1.07 

Ease of head movement 6.13 1.13 6.13 0.83 4.13 1.89 

Ability to run 6.00 1.15 5.13 1.73 4.63 1.51 

Use of hand and arm signals 5.86 1.21 6.17 0.75 5.67 1.21 

Move through doorways 5.88 1.36 5.71 1.25 5.75 1.39 

Move through mouse holes 4.50 1.31 2.88 0.99 3.63 1.41 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.88 1.13 5.14 0.90 6.25 0.89 

Ability to engage enemy 6.29 0.76 5.29 0.95 5.17 1.33 

Conducting IMT 5.83 1.17 6.00 0.00 5.75 0.50 

Move through windows 5.75 1.50 4.00 1.41 3.50 2.38 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 5.71 1.50 4.29 1.70 4.38 1.77 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.13 1.13 6.25 0.89 6.13 0.99 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced 

exposure position) 5.75 1.49 5.00 1.20 5.13 1.36 

Pressure points 6.29 1.11 5.75 1.28 5.88 1.36 

Hot spots 6.29 1.11 6.25 0.89 6.13 0.99 

Bruising on your body 5.71 1.11 5.71 1.60 5.25 1.49 

Torso chafing in front 5.29 1.60 5.75 1.58 5.75 1.28 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 0.58 6.00 1.41 5.75 1.28 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.57 0.98 4.88 1.25 4.88 1.36 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.29 0.76 5.38 1.41 5.38 1.30 

Neck/head chafing 5.29 1.11 5.63 1.30 4.75 1.58 

Equipment snagging 5.29 1.11 3.75 2.05 4.25 1.58 

Equipment hindering movement 4.86 0.90 3.88 1.64 4.00 1.51 

Weight shifting 5.57 1.27 6.25 0.71 6.00 1.20 

Equipment pinching 6.00 0.58 5.25 1.98 5.38 1.60 

Load adjustment 6.00 0.82 6.25 0.71 6.13 0.83 

Access to stowed items 6.33 0.82 6.25 1.04 6.00 0.93 

Ability to breathe 4.00 1.29 6.13 1.13 5.00 1.77 

Overall comfort 5.00 0.82 4.75 0.71 5.00 0.93 

Armor preventing flexing 5.14 1.07 6.13 0.83 5.75 1.58 
70 

Table 47. Repeated measures ANOVAs, loft clearing questionnaires. 

Question F df p η2

p

Ease of leg movement 1.84 2,14 0.195 0.21 

Ease of assuming prone position < 1.00 2,14 0.621 0.21 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 1 2,14 0.402 0.17 

Ease of arm movement < 1.00 2,14 0.513 0.09 

Ease of torso movement < 1.00 2,14 0.742 0.04 

Ease of head movement 6.58 2,14 0.010* 0.48 

Ability to run 1.09 2,14 0.366 0.15 

Use of hand and arm signals < 1.00 2,14 0.542 0.12 

Move through doorways < 1.00 2,14 0.69 0.6 

Move through mouse holes 7.35 2,14 0.007* 0.51 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 4.67 2,14 0.032* 0.44 

Ability to engage enemy 1.75 2,14 0.223 0.26 

Conducting IMT < 1.00 2,14 0.79 0.11 

Move through windows 3 2,14 0.16 0.6 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs < 1.00 2,14 0.44 0.15 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” < 1.00 2,14 0.952 < .01 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure 

position) < 1.00 2,14 0.417 0.12 

Pressure points < 1.00 2,14 0.443 0.13 

Hot spots < 1.00 2,14 0.99 < .01 

Bruising on your body < 1.00 2,14 0.658 0.08 

Torso chafing in front < 1.00 2,14 0.465 0.12 

Torso chafing in back 1.35 2,14 0.296 0.18 

Arm/shoulder chafing 1.61 2,14 0.24 0.21 

Leg/thigh chafing 2.34 2,14 0.138 0.28 

Neck/head chafing 2.4 2,14 0.133 0.29 

Equipment snagging 1.62 2,14 0.235 0.21 

Equipment hindering movement 1.69 2,14 0.226 0.22 

Weight shifting 1 2,14 0.397 0.19 

Equipment pinching 1.41 2,14 0.281 0.19 

Load adjustment < 1.00 2,14 0.641 0.07 

Access to stowed items < 1.00 2,14 0.647 0.08 

Ability to breathe 4.69 2,14 0.031* 0.44 

Overall comfort < 1.00 2,14 0.84 0.03 

p < .05 

Table 48. Ensuing comparisons, “ease of head movement,” loft clearing. 

Comparison df t required p obtained p 

Base versus Belt 7 0 0.0500 0.99 

Base versus Up Armor 7 3.53 0.0167 0.010* 

Belt versus Up Armor 7 2.83 0.025 0.025* 

p < .05, 2-tailed 

Table 49. Ensuing comparisons, “moving through mouse holes,” loft clearing. 

Comparison df t required p obtained p 

Base versus Belt 7 3.26 0.0167 0.014* 

Base versus Up Armor 7 2.20 0.025 0.064 

Belt versus Up Armor 7 2.05 0.05 0.08 

p < .05, 2-tailed 
71 

Table 50. Ensuing comparisons, “ability to conduct reflexive shooting,” loft clearing. 

Comparison df t required p obtained p 

Base versus Belt 7 2.29 0.0167 0.062 

Base versus Up Armor 7 0.89 0.05 0.402 

Belt versus Up Armor 7 2.29 0.025 0.062 

Table 51. Ensuing comparisons, “ability to breathe,” loft clearing. 

Comparison df t required p obtained p 

Base versus Belt 6 3.04 0.0167 0.023 

Base versus Up Armor 6 0.83 0.05 0.441 

Belt versus Up Armor 7 2.05 0.025 0.08 

3.5 IMT and CB Event 

3.5.1 IMT and CB Activities 

The Soldiers were shown how to negotiate each obstacle on the IMT course and were fitted for 

the CB equipment. Only four of the Soldiers were able to fit into the CB garments, two into the 

medium and two into the large CB garments. Figures 41 and 42 show the differences in the 

medium and large CB garments. The medium CB garment had a hip inlet for the PAVS. The 

large CB garment had an abdomen inlet for the PAVS. 

Figure 41. PAVS, medium (hip inlet), belt and leg mounts. 
72 

Figure 42. PAVS, large (abdomen inlet), belt and leg mounts. 

There were two configurations for mounting the PAVS and the PAPR. Figure 43 shows the PAVS 

and the PAPR mounted on the belt, and figure 44 shows the PAVS and PAPR mounted on the leg. 

Figure 43. PAVS and PAPR belt mount. 
73 

Figure 44. PAVS and PAPR leg mount. 

3.5.2 Specific Results, Day 5 

The complete results of Soldiers’ comments and SME observations are shown in appendix G. 

The sample size was small for this event and was made even smaller than originally planned 

because of the temperature rising above safe levels. Table 52 shows the limited descriptive 

statistics about the Soldiers’ responses to the questionnaires. The Soldiers indicated they had 

“some” to “a lot of difficulty” with the replacement of magazines into their ammunition pouches 

while they wore the CB over-garments (figure 45). 
74 

Table 52. Descriptive statistics about Soldiers’ responses. 

CB + Mask Belt Mount Leg Mount 

n = 3 n = 3 n = 2 

Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

Pipe Crawl 

Running/dashing 5.67 1.53 6.33 0.58 5.50 0.71 

Negotiating pipe crawl 6.33 0.58 5.33 1.53 5.50 0.71 

Leg movement 5.33 2.08 5.33 2.08 4.50 0.71 

Arm movement 5.33 2.08 6.00 1.00 6.00 1.41 

Torso movement 6.33 0.58 5.67 1.53 6.00 1.41 

Head movement 4.67 3.21 4.67 2.08 5.50 2.12 

Crawling 6.33 0.58 5.33 1.53 4.00 1.41 

Zig-Zag 

Negotiating the zig-zag 6.33 0.58 6.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 

Negotiating the 2-ft jump 6.33 0.58 6.33 0.58 6.50 0.71 

Negotiating the hill 6.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 6.50 0.71 

Head movement 4.67 3.21 4.67 2.52 6.00 1.41 

Running 6.33 0.58 6.33 0.58 5.00 0.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 6.00 1.00 5.33 2.08 4.50 2.12 

Seeing/scanning up and down 3.67 2.52 5.67 2.31 5.50 2.12 

Foxhole Firing Position 

Getting into the foxhole 6.67 0.58 7.00 0.00 6.50 0.71 

Assuming good foxhole firing position 5.67 1.53 6.67 0.58 6.50 0.71 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition pouches 

while in foxhole firing position 6.33 0.58 5.00 2.00 5.50 2.12 

Kneeling Firing Position

Assuming a good kneeling firing position 6.33 0.58 6.33 1.15 6.00 1.41 

Leg movement 6.00 1.00 5.33 2.08 6.00 1.41 

Arm movement 6.33 0.58 5.67 2.31 6.00 1.41 

Torso movement 6.00 1.00 5.67 1.53 6.00 1.41 

Acquiring targets from kneeling firing position 6.33 0.58 5.67 2.31 6.00 1.41 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition pouches 

while in kneeling position 5.33 2.08 5.67 1.53 5.50 2.12 

Replacing empty magazines in ammunition 

pouches while in kneeling position 3.67 3.06 4.33 1.53 4.50 3.54 

High Wall

Negotiating high wall 6.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 4.50 0.71 

Assuming prone firing position 5.33 2.08 6.00 1.73 6.00 1.41 

Leg movement 5.67 1.53 5.33 2.08 5.00 1.41 

Arm movement 6.33 0.58 6.00 1.73 6.50 0.71 

Torso movement 6.33 0.58 6.00 1.73 6.00 1.41 

Prone Firing Position

Acquiring targets from the prone firing position 5.67 1.53 5.67 2.31 6.50 0.71 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition pouches 

while in prone position 5.33 2.08 4.00 2.65 4.50 3.54 

Seeing/scanning up and down 4.67 3.21 5.00 2.65 5.00 2.83 

Replacing empty magazines in ammunition 

pouches while in prone position 3.67 3.06 2.33 1.15 4.00 2.83 

Seeing/scanning left and right 6.33 0.58 5.33 2.08 5.00 1.41 

Seeing/scanning up and down 4.67 3.21 5.67 2.31 6.50 0.71 

Pressure points 6.67 0.58 7.00 0.00 6.00 1.41 

Hot spots 4.67 3.21 5.00 3.46 6.00 1.41 

Bruising on your body 6.33 0.58 7.00 0.00 6.00 1.41 

Torso chafing in front 6.67 0.58 7.00 0.00 6.00 1.41 

Torso chafing in back 6.67 0.58 6.67 0.58 6.00 1.41 
75 

Arm/shoulder chafing 6.33 0.58 6.67 0.58 6.00 1.41 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.67 0.58 6.67 0.58 6.00 1.41 

Neck/head chafing 6.67 0.58 6.67 0.58 6.00 1.41 

Equipment catching 6.67 0.58 5.33 2.08 5.50 0.71 

Equipment hindering movement 5.33 2.08 6.00 1.00 3.00 1.41 

Weight shifting 6.67 0.58 5.67 2.31 6.00 1.41 

Equipment pinching 6.33 0.58 6.00 1.73 6.00 1.41 

Armor preventing flexing 6.00 1.00 6.33 1.15 6.00 1.41 

Hoses restricting movement (too short) 7.00 . 5.67 2.31 6.00 1.41 

Hoses snagging (too long) 7.00 . 7.00 0.00 6.00 1.41 

Face 4.33 0.58 5.00 1.73 6.50 0.71 

Right arm 3.33 1.15 3.00 1.73 6.00 0.00 

Left arm 3.33 1.15 3.00 1.73 6.00 0.00 

Torso front 3.67 0.58 5.00 2.65 6.50 0.71 

Torso back 3.67 0.58 4.33 2.52 6.50 0.71 

Right leg 3.33 1.15 3.33 2.08 5.50 0.71 

Left leg 3.33 1.15 3.33 2.08 5.50 0.71 

Overall comfort 5.00 1.00 5.33 2.08 7.00 . 

Control knobs on PAVS and PAPR with gloved 

hands x x 5.33 2.08 5.00 0.00 

Connecting and disconnecting PAVS hose to and 

from manifold assembly x x 5.33 2.08 5.00 0.00 

Exchange battery in PAVS x x 7.00 0.00 6.00 1.41 

Overall comfort 5.33 1.15 5.33 2.08 6.00 1.41 

The performance of the PAVS is worth carrying 

the extra weight x x 4.67 2.52 6.50 0.71 

The best place to carry the PAVS is on the belt x x 4.33 0.58 6.50 0.71 

The best place to carry the PAVS is on the hip x x 4.67 1.15 2.00 . 

I would accept less performance of the PAVS in 

order to reduce the size and weight x x 2.67 1.53 4.00 . 

The performance of the PAPR is worth carrying 

the extra weight x x 4.67 2.52 6.50 0.71 

The best place to carry the PAPR is on the belt x x 4.67 1.15 6.50 0.71 

The best place to carry the PAPR is on the leg x x 3.67 0.58 2.00 . 

I would accept less performance of the PAPR in 

order to reduce the size and weight x x 2.00 1.73 4.00 . 

The concept of an air ventilation system for a CB 

over-garment and mask is a good idea x x 7.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 

The suggestion of a “drop bag” for the empty magazines was evident during this exercise 

because Soldiers had much difficulty with replacing their magazines in the ammunition pouches. 

Soldiers had a difficult time executing combat rolls and low crawling with the PAVS and the 

PAPR mounted on the leg and some difficulty when they were mounted on the belt. The 

Soldiers preferred the PAVS and the PAPR mounted on the belt slightly more than mounted on 

the leg. They would prefer that the PAVS and the PAPR be mounted on the back. They also 

agree that the extra weight was worth the effort. The Soldiers responded negatively when asked 

if they would accept less performance for less weight. All Soldiers stated the concept of a PAVS 

and a PAPR was excellent. 
76 

Figure 45. Soldier, magazine replacement. 

Tables 53, 54, and 55 were constructed from table 52. Questions were included only if there was 

a difference of 1.00 or greater between any of the three means. 

Table 53. Items in which the CB plus mask is the favored set of gear. 

Negotiating pipe crawl 

Seeing/scanning left and right 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition pouches in foxhole and prone firing position 

Executing combat rolls left and right 

Equipment catching 

Weight shifting 

Hoses restricting movement (too short) 

Table 54. Items for which the belt mount is the 

favored variation. 

Assuming good foxhole firing position 

Negotiating high crawl 
77 

Table 55. Items for which the leg mount has the highest rating. 

Head movement 

Replacing empty magazines in ammunition pouches in prone position 

Hot spots 

Air flow to the face 

Air flow to the arms 

Air flow to the front and back of the torso 

Air flow to the legs 

Overall comfort 

The CB suit and mask alone was preferred for crawling, combat rolls, retrieving magazines, 

scanning left and right, and equipment not catching or restricting movement. In this configuration, 

there are no objects hanging from the belt or legs to hinder these movements. 

The belt mount ensemble was preferred for the high crawl and for assuming the foxhole firing 

position. 

The leg mount was preferred in terms of head movement, replacing magazines, air flow to the 

body, and overall comfort. 

During this event, the Soldiers had the following comments: 

FFW + CB + Mask 

• Heat buildup (two Soldiers made the same comment). 

• Change the placement of the magazine or add a magazine drop pouch. 

FFW + CB + Mask + Belt Mount 

• The magazines are hard to see with the gear on. 

• I would add a drop pouch for expended magazines. 

FFW + CB + Mask + Leg Mount 

• The blower on the outside of my leg rolled to the inside while I was high crawling and 

slowed me down. 

• The leg mounts shifted during the high crawl. 

• The blowers can’t go on your legs. 

• Get the blowers off the legs; it makes movement too slow and sluggish. 

Table 56 is a summary of SMEs’ and experiment directors’ data. Times were recorded at each 

firing point and for overall time to complete the course. There were no significant differences in 

the times to complete, especially given that roster 5’s excess time resulted from his inability to 

replace the magazines into the ammunition pouches in a timely manner. This task, replacing 

magazines into ammunition pouches, caused the most problems and frustration for the Soldiers 

during this activity. The Soldiers also had problems with the CB garment tearing (figure 46) and 
78 

the hoses from the PAVS and PAPR coming loose (figure 47). In most cases, they did not realize 

the hoses had come loose until a SME stopped them and replaced the hose. The Soldiers also 

commented about the difficulty they had in turning the PAVS and PAPR on. The on/off switch 

was especially difficult to operate. One Soldier’s chassis became unlatched while he was 

traversing the course. It is not known why it came unlatched, but the question of whether the 

latch had been filed too much or if there was excess wear on the latching system is unknown. 

Table 56. SME and experiment directors’ observations, day 5. 

Iteration 1 

ID 

No. Config 

Time to 

Complete 

FP 

No. 1 

FP 

No. 2 

FP 

No. 3 

FP 

No. 4 Notes 

5 A 07:43.0 01:03.9 00:51.1 01:09.0 01:33.3 

Struggled replacing magazines into 

pouches 

9 B 04:43.0 00:34.9 00:27.5 00:30.8 01:04.5 

Had difficulty replacing magazines and 

caused extra time at firing points 

4 FFW 06:48.0 00:59.1 00:42.5 01:07.9 00:33.9 

Chassis came open and he could not reconnect; had to be reconnected by test 

personnel. Reconnected at foxhole firing 

position (FP). 

8 A 05:53.0 00:47.2 00:44.4 00:44.2 00:59.3 

PAVS hose came off and had to be 

reconnected after high crawl. 

Iteration 2 

5 B 06:13.0 00:51.6 00:53.5 01:01.8 00:51.7 

Blank adapter was loose, caused misfire 

at FP 1. Did not return used magazines to 

ammunition pouches at FP 2 and 4 

9 A 05:09.0 00:45.8 00:43.1 00:29.9 00:39.7 

4 A 05:19.0 00:37.6 00:52.0 00:34.3 00:53.0 

PAPR hose came off in foxhole, Soldier 

tried to fix it himself. Both PAPR and 

PAVS came off on high crawl, stopped 

Soldier reconnected. 

8 FFW 05:28.0 00:33.2 00:53.0 00:40.6 00:48.6 

Figure 46. Torn CB garment. 
79 

Figure 47. Loose PAPR hose. 

3.6 Side Experiment: Day 5, Cross Country 

3.6.1 Grenadier’s Cross-Country Movement 

On day 4, the grenadiers did not carry a full basic load of 24 rounds. Therefore, a side 

experiment to evaluate their mobility with 24 rounds was conducted. Figure 16 shows the crosscountry course. It was approximately 1 km long and consisted of low crawl areas, high crawl 

areas, a stream crossing, and open and close woodlands. The grenadiers were able to traverse the 

course with no problems. 

The Soldier comments include 

• Ear plugs on leader’s helmet dangled around the Soldier’s head. The Soldiers would like 

some way to secure them. 

• Both grenadiers liked the elbow and knee pads when high crawling during cross-country 

movement. 

• Grenadiers preferred mounting rounds on the belt as opposed to putting them on the leg 

panels. 
80 

3.7 Additional Information 

Throughout the experiment, weight was a major concern. For each exercise on each phase, 

weights of the Soldiers were recorded (appendix F). The only comparison was conducted in 

phase I, movement to contact; however, the measured weights are available for review. 

Also, every attempt was made to allow the IPTs access to the Soldiers throughout the event. 

They contributed to the success of the event and their input was used in this report. A complete 

listing of the IPT comments is shown in appendix G for the reader’s review. 

4. Discussion

4.1 Chassis Loads 

Evaluate the form, fit, comfort, load distribution, and load distribution options (how each Soldier 

loaded his system) of Soldier variations (leader, rifleman, automatic rifleman, grenadier, and 

medic). 

4.1.1 Uniform 

The Soldiers liked the shirt (torso only). They disliked the heavy material used in the sleeves of 

the shirt. There were many comments about the heat buildup and heavy material on the shirt. 

They really liked the synthetic material used in the torso portion of the shirt instead of the light 

wool blend material. The Soldiers also reported the zippers on the shirt caused irritation and 

should either be padded on the inside or changed to a different fastening system. They liked the 

pockets on the sleeves. The Soldiers generally liked the integrated elbow pads but thought they 

were too long. 

The Soldiers disliked the trousers. They complained of the positioning of the pockets and the lack 

of normal type (on front) pockets. The zippered ventilation system received mixed comments. 

The zipper caused irritation and needs the same attention as the shirt’s zipper. Also, the Soldiers 

liked the idea of ventilation but found the openings were blocked when they wore the up-armor 

leg panels, so the ventilation did not work. They disliked the knee pads and had a lot of difficulty 

keeping them in place as they walked. Four of the Soldiers reported that the knee pads were 

rubbing against their shins and caused irritation. It was believed that if an improved fastening 

system and shorter knee pads were incorporated, then the integrated knee pads might be 

acceptable. 

4.1.2 Chassis 

Initially, the Soldiers had much difficulty with the chassis fastening system. They did not like it 

and found it very difficult to latch and unlatch. Some of the Soldiers asked the IPTs to file the 
81 

latching system to allow easier latching and unlatching, and some systems apparently became 

worn and easier to latch and unlatch by week’s end. 

The Soldiers commented very favorably on the ventilation properties of the FFW chassis, and all 

recommended that it be adapted not only to FFW but to the current baseline equipment too. All 

the Soldiers found the chassis to be more comfortable than the baseline. Two of the Soldiers 

reported slight shifting problems with the FFW chassis, but four Soldiers reported shifting 

problems with the baseline. The Soldiers reported ease of adjusting the chassis and liked the 

suspension system used on the FFW chassis. However, they would like some quick way of 

stowing or securing the cords of the chassis suspension system. 

All but one Soldier disliked the stock lock system. They found it to be useless and in most cases, 

the Soldier did not or would not place the butt of his weapon in this unusual place. They 

recommended that a non-slip material be incorporated into the uniform shirt (similar to that used 

by professional shooters) in its place. The stock lock system proved to be in the way more than 

an improvement over the baseline. The Soldiers also suggested developing a method of attaching 

their weapons to the chassis, which would allow the weapon to hang freely but remain attached to 

the chassis. Several of the Soldiers had a makeshift system and used it. The attachment would 

have to be of the correct length that would allow the Soldier to raise the weapon directly to the 

firing position with one hand. 

The Soldiers liked the flexibility of the attachment system used on the chassis. Throughout the 

week, they experimented with moving electronic and mission-related items on the chassis, 

ballistic belt, and up-armor leg panels. The FFW ensemble allowed the Soldiers to configure their 

gear for specific mission requirements, such as attaching extra munitions to the ballistic belt. 

The form, fit, and comfort were influenced by the initial fitting of the FFW ensembles. There 

appeared to be some fitting problems with the limited sizes available. The different torso lengths 

contributed to this. The Soldiers complained of pinching between the chassis and the ballistic 

belt. They also had problems with the ballistic belt slipping down on their hips while they 

moved through the woods. The initial fitting was and will remain critical. 

If the FFW is to eventually be fielded, then design considerations must include appropriate sizing 

to accommodate the 5th through 95th percentile target audience. Procurement should be based on 

the quantity of individual sizes required (e.g., XS, S, M, L, XL) by component to accommodate 

the target audience with a reasonable amount of “spares” for exchange or replacement purposes. 

Soldiers must be measured and sized and then fitted with the correct item in order to maximize 

their own and FFW effectiveness. Complete attention to this “tariff” (5th to 95th) must be adhered 

to and completed. The lack of different sizes and inability to achieve correct sizing may have had 

serious impacts on this experiment. In future evaluations, the program should provide sufficient 

systems in different sizes to accommodate those Soldiers who participate. It is difficult to find 

Soldiers to fit available sizes. 
82 

4.1.3 Ballistic Belt 

The Soldiers generally liked the ballistic belt and found it to be useful. The grenadiers and the 

SAW gunners liked the flexibility of having extra space to attach the 40-mm rounds and the 

SAW ammunition. However, most wanted suspenders to assist in keeping the ballistic belt in the 

proper position. Several Soldiers reported that the ballistic belt would not stay in place and 

caused discomfort when it slipped down during movement. 

Some Soldiers had problems with the ballistic belt and the chassis pinching and causing 

irritation. This was partly attributable to the ill-fitting problem identified in paragraph 4.1.2 but 

also to ill-fitting problems with the ballistic belt. One Soldier was not issued a ballistic belt 

because the IPTs did not have one small enough. This Soldier had a 32-inch waist and was well 

with in the 5th to the 95th percentile. 

4.2 Ammunition Accessibility 

The goal was to evaluate the Soldiers’ ability to access ammunition pouches while firing 

weapons. 

The Soldiers did not report any problems with accessing their ammunition magazines during the 

attack on the objectives on days 2 and 4. However, on day 5 during the IMT course while Soldiers 

wore the CB equipment, they had extreme difficulty in retrieving and replacing magazines. In one 

case, a Soldier became so frustrated with attempting to replace magazines into the ammunition 

pouches, he carried all his magazines in his hand while completing the course (figure 45). The 

Soldiers had a simple solution to this problem, use a drop bag (figure 38). Several of them asked 

the IPTs to provide drop bags, and they used them to drop their magazines when finished. The test 

personnel did not allow them to use a drop bag on day 5; thus, all the problems surfaced. The drop 

bag is a good concept and should be adapted “officially” for the FFW and baseline. Currently, the 

Soldiers use expanded SAW ammunition bags. 

4.3 Chassis Components 

The goal was to solicit feedback from Soldiers about comfort, fit, and location of the ensemble 

components (including up-armor options, chassis closure mechanism, gear, electronics locations, 

power and personal area network; this is not an exhaustive list) while they wore the fighting 

and/or approach loads. 

Overall, the Soldiers liked the flexibility of being able to move items around on the chassis. 

Most of the Soldiers disliked any hard objects, such as batteries, under their arms on the chassis. 

This tended to interfere with their ability to move their arms and obtain good sight pictures with 

their weapon. Therefore, most Soldiers moved all the items from under their arms, or they 

placed soft or small objects under their arms and on the side of the chassis. 
83 

When they were allowed to configure their chassis system, the Soldiers tended to put all the 

batteries and electronics on the back of the chassis. They had a preference for those items they 

would need quickly and often (ammunition) on the front. The Soldiers, especially the grenadiers 

and the SAW gunners, liked the flexibility of placing their ammunition on the chassis and some 

on the ballistic belts. They did not like putting anything heavy on the up-armor leg panels. 

However, they would put the IFAK and the CLS bag on the leg panels. 

As mentioned previously, the Soldiers initially had much difficulty with the closure mechanism 

on the chassis. When the IPTs worked on the closure mechanism and it received some wear, the 

comments were fewer. 

The Soldiers wore all components of the up armor only on day 3 during MOUT operations. 

They had very few problems with the shoulder, abdomen, and drop leg up armor. However, they 

all disliked the neck-up armor. It was cumbersome and retained heat. The leader variation 

helmet interfered with the neck-up armor and made it difficult to see upward (figure 36). All the 

Soldiers stated they would not voluntarily wear the neck-up armor, with the exception of three 

who stated they might wear it on convoy operations if they were the exposed gunner on top of 

the vehicle. 

The proper fitting of the chassis was a problem from the beginning and caused some concern to 

the test personnel (test officers, SMEs, data collectors, observers, etc.). There were a few 

Soldiers who were not properly fitted because of the lack of proper sizing. One Soldier did not 

have a ballistic belt during the experiment because there was not one to fit him. This could have 

been the reason for the appearance that the FFW chassis did not provide the protection coverage 

of the baseline. An observation of the Soldiers showed areas of non-coverage in the upper chest, 

underarms, the abdomen, and lower back area between the chassis and ballistic belt. If proper 

fitting can resolve this perceived problem and provide more ballistic protection to the Soldier, 

then every attempt possible to have proper sizing for future events should be made. 

4.4 CB Gear 

The goal was to collect limited data about the form, fit, comfort, and wear and tear of the CB 

gear, as applicable during this event. 

There were only limited opportunities for the Soldiers to wear the CB gear with the FFW 

ensemble. Four Soldiers participated in this event. They all stated that both the PAVS and the 

PAPR were a big improvement and they thought the additional weight was worth it for the 

ventilation properties they received. 

There were some problems with the PAVS and PAPR when carried on the legs. The Soldier’s 

movement was more restricted, and the PAVS and PAPR tended to flop around during running 

and crawling. One Soldier had problems conducting combat roles and one had difficulty in 

completing the low crawl. 
84 

One Soldier’s CB over-garment was torn through the inseam while he was traversing the IMT 

course (figure 46). As mentioned previously, human factors design issues need to be addressed 

for the CB components. 

4.5 CB and Weapons Firing Interaction 

The goal was to evaluate the interaction between the CB gear with various weapons and the 

chassis during weapons firing (blanks). 

The Soldiers did not report any difficulty in obtaining a sight picture and conducting the firing 

exercises required on the IMT course. However, as previously stated, they had extreme difficulty 

in replacing the magazines into the ammunition pouches and some difficulty in retrieving full 

magazines from the ammunition pouches to use in the firing exercises. The openings of the 

ammunition pouches were very small, and this made it difficult for the Soldiers to replace 

magazines because of the restricted vision while they wore the CB mask. 

4.6 Helmets and Weapons Firing Interaction 

The goal was to evaluate the interaction between the design cycle III helmet with various 

weapons and the chassis during weapons firing (blanks). 

There were no reported problems with weapons firing while Soldiers wore helmets. 

4.7 Design Cycle III Helmets 

The goal was to evaluate the fit and comfort of the design cycle III helmet. 

The Soldiers liked the leader variation helmet and stated that the extra weight was almost 

imperceptible. One team leader had problems with the wiring connection between the helmet 

and the chassis and broke it several times (figure 28). In working versions of this helmet and its 

chassis-mounted electronics, some basic human factors design must be completed to ensure that 

routing of the wires is workable. 

There were some initial problems with the Soldier variation helmet. The Soldiers complained of 

excessive heat buildup and perspiration problems. These complaints came from the Soldier 

variation helmet with the Skydex impact liner. The IPTs changed the impact liners with Brock 

liners and made some (unknown to test personnel) modifications of the pads, and the Soldiers’ 

complaints were noticeably reduced. 

4.8 LSDS 

The goal was to evaluate the form, fit, and comfort of the LSDS. 
85 

The Soldiers preferred the Hidalgo for both the base and FFW wear. It was more comfortable 

and caused the least amount of interference. This was especially true with the baseline gear. 

The 1-C caused much irritation when it was worn with the baseline gear. 

However, they did not like the straps with the Hidalgo but preferred the straps with the 1-C. The 

best answer is a combination of both, the slimmer, less irritating Hidalgo with the 1-C straps. 

4.9 Conclusion 

As mentioned before, there are human factors design issues that need to be addressed and 

evaluated on all components of the FFW ensemble. 

5. Recommendations 

5.1 Uniform 

• Use a lighter weight material for the shirt sleeves and trousers. Something similar to the 

current BDU would be adequate and more comfortable for the Soldiers. 

• Replace the zippers on the shirt and trousers, or (at a minimum) have a soft backing on the 

zippers to reduce the irritation to the skin. 

• Reduce the length of the elbow and knee pads and make them more stable to reduce 

movement of the pads. 

• Improve the mechanism of securing the elbow and knee pads to eliminate the possibility of 

the pads coming loose and moving around while the Soldier is walking. 

5.2 Chassis 

• Improve the latching system to allow for easier latching and unlatching of the chassis 

system. 

• Provide a means to stow the chassis adjusting cords. 

• Eliminate the stock lock system. 

• Provide a means to attach the weapon to the chassis in the vicinity of the firing shoulder so 

that a Soldier can, with one hand, bring his weapon up into his shoulder and achieve a good 

firing position. 

• Ensure that sizing of the chassis takes into consideration height and weight distributions 

(5th to 95th percentile). 
86 

5.3 Ballistic Belt 

• The belt needs suspenders as an option. 

• Ensure that the sizing of the belt takes into consideration height and weight distributions 

(5th to 95th percentile). 

5.4 Ammunition Accessibility 

• Develop a magazine “drop bag” so Soldiers can drop used magazines into an easily 

accessible bag, as opposed to a tightly fitting magazine pouch. 

5.5 Chassis Components 

• Determine better locations for hard items (e.g., batteries) other than under the arms. 

• Improve the neck-up armor, make it more comfortable, and fix the limitations on head and 

neck movements. 

• Improve the ballistic protection of the chassis, especially in the upper chest, arm pits, lower 

abdomen, and lower back areas. 

5.6 CB Gear 

• Reduce the size but not the performance of the PAVS and PAPR. 

• Find a way to better secure the PAVS and the PAPR to the back of the chassis or to the 

waist area. 

• Increase the strength and durability of the CB over-garment material. 

• Develop reliable hose connectors. 

5.7 Design Cycle III Helmets 

• Conduct a human factors engineering evaluation on the routing of the wires and connectors 

between the chassis and helmet. 

• Improve the ventilation to the top of the head for all helmets. 

5.8 LSDS 

• Keep the slimmer Hidalgo LSDS but change the straps to be similar to the straps used on 

the 1-C system. 
87 

6. References 

Department of the Army. Battle drills for the Infantry rifle platoon and squad (Army Training 

and Evaluation Plan [ARTEP] 7-8). Washington, DC, April 2000. 

Department of the Army. Urban Operations (Field Manual [FM] 3-06.11). Washington, DC, 

May 2002. 

Department of the Army. Infantry rifle platoon and squad (FM 7-8). Washington, DC, 22 April 

1992. 

Department of the Army. An Infantryman’s guide to combat in built-up areas (FM 90-10-1). 

Washington, DC, 12 May 1993. 

Department of the Army. Combat skills for the Soldier (FM 21-75). Washington, DC, 3 August 

1984. 

General Dynamics Eagle Enterprise. Objective Force Warrior – Advance Technology 

Demonstration Program Quarterly Report #2 and Fightability Assessment Report. General 

Dynamics Engineering, Evaluation, Demonstration Integrated Product Team, Owings Mills, 

MD, November 2003. 

Gordon, C. C.; Churchill, T.; Clauser, C. E.; Bradtmiller, B.; McConville, J. T.; Tebbetts, I.; 

Walker, R. A. 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Summary Statistics 

Report 1989; Technical Report Natick/TR-89-027; U.S. Army Natick Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center: Natick, MA, 1989. 

LaFiandra M. Future Force Warrior March 04 User Jury Report. General Dynamics Eagle 

Enterprise Report (XO Draft, Contract DAAD12-02-09-0001), in review. 

LaFiandra M. Future Force Warrior September 2004 Design Evaluation Report. General 

Dynamics Eagle Enterprise Report (XO Draft, Contract DAAD12-02-09-0001), in review. 
88 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
89 

Appendix A. Demographics and Anthropometrics 

Table A-1. Demographics. 

SAMPLE SIZE = 10 

 AGE

 Mean = 24 

RANK

 E-3 – 2 E-5 – 2 

 E-4 – 5 E-6 – 1 

MOS

11B – 9 

91W - 1 

TIME IN SERVICE

Mean = 51 months 

GT SCORE DUTY POSITION

Mean = 107 Squad Leader - 1 Automatic Rifleman - 2 

 Team Leader – 2 Rifleman - 2 

 Grenadier - 2 Medic - 1 

1. Do you wear prescription lenses? 3 yes 7 no 

 

2. If yes, which do you wear most often? 2 glasses 1 contacts 

3. Which do you wear while firing a weapon? 2 glasses 1 contacts 

4. With which hand do you most often write? 9 right 1 left 

5. With which hand do you most often fire a weapon? 8 Right 2 left 

6. What size BDUs do you wear? Pants 

Medium Short (2) 

 Reg (2) 

 Long (5) 

 XL (1) 

 Shirt 

Medium Small (1) 

 Reg (3) 

 XLong (1) 

Large Small (1) 

 Reg (1) 

 Long (1) 

 XL (1) 

7. Time in current duty position? 15 months (mean) 

 

8. Latest APFT score 267 (mean) Out of 300 

 

9. Have you any experience with the Land Warrior Program? 3 yes 7 no 

 

10. What is your current assigned personal weapon? M203 (2) M4 (5) 

M249 (2) None (1) 

 

11. What was your most recent weapon qualification score? 37 (mean) out of 40 

 

12. Have you served in a combat or hostile fire zone? 3 yes 6 no 

 
90 

13. If so where? Iraq (3); Afghanistan (2) 

 

14. When was the last time you participated in chemical/ 

biological self-defense training? 

Jun02 

Aug02 

Mar03 

Apr03 

Nov03 

May04 

 

15. Have you ever trained/worn full MOPP gear (mask, boots, 

gloves, and chemical suit)? 

 9 yes 1 no 

-- If yes, longest time in protective clothing? 4 days (mean) 

 

16. Self rating of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities related to Infantry duties: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Poor Average Outstanding 

 

MEAN RESPONSE

a. Knowledge of Infantry tactics, techniques, and procedures 4.60 

b. Knowledge of rifle marksmanship 5.80 

c. Knowledge of room-clearing tactics 5.00 

d. Knowledge of mechanics and maintenance procedures for weapon systems and equipment used 4.70 

e. Knowledge of reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition procedures 3.80 

f. Proficiency in chemical/biological operations 3.50 

g. Leadership skills 4.10 

h. Knowledge of map reading and orientation in field setting 4.60 

i. Knowledge of land navigation 4.56 

j. Knowledge relating to communications equipment and communications procedures 4.22 

k. Knowledge of MOUT operations 4.56 

l. Small unit tactics skills 5.00 

17. What load carriage system do you typically use? 

 5 MOLLE 4 ALICE 1 Other: Aid bag 

18. What type of tactical headgear to you typically wear? 

 0 KEVLAR 9 ACH/MICH 0 CVC 1 Other: Patrol 

19. What type of body armor do you typically wear? 

 9 Interceptor 0 KEVLAR 1 None 

20. Military training/instruction received in Infantry operations: 

 

 9 Basic training 2 Advance (Infantry) training 

 2 PLDC 0 BNCOC 

 0 ANCOC 0 IOBC/OCS 

 0 Ranger 2 Airborne 

 0 Sniper 0 Bradley Leaders Course 

 0 Master Gunner 0 ICC 

 9 Combat Life Saver 3 Other – EIB, JAVE, Cadre Tng 
91 

Table A-2. Anthropometric measurements. 

Anthropometric Measurements (Percentile) 

Roster 

Chest 

Circumference 

Crotch 

Height 

Head 

Circumference Head Breadth Head Length 

2 96 43 60 34 65 

3 91 12 92 90 80 

4 12 43 85 34 90 

5 48 2 15 15 19 

6 97 2 75 75 65 

7 91 2 30 5 19 

8 30 55 35 15 19 

9 72 72 95 75 85 

Roster 

Sleeve 

Length: 

Spine-Wrist 

Waist 

Circumference 

(omphalion) Weight Stature 

Waist Back 

Length 

2 62 77 98 87 10 

3 73 92 96 87 38 

4 34 20 25 76 10 

5 30 65 30 22 2 

6 18 92 93 43 23 

7 2 95 77 23 10 

8 40 38 50 90 10 

9 68 72 88 98 48 
92 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
93 

Appendix B. Training and Fitting 

SAMPLE SIZE = 8 

1. Using scale below, please rate your comfort level with donning and doffing and/or using these 

pieces. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

uncomfortable 

Very 

uncomfortable Uncomfortable 

Neither 

comfortable 

or 

uncomfortable 

Comfortable Very 

comfortable 

Extremely 

comfortable 

Item n Mean SD 

Combat pants 8 4.63 0.92 

Combat shirt 8 4.75 0.89 

Armor chassis 8 4.88 0.83 

Armored load belt 6 5.17 0.98 

FFW ballistic helmet shell 7 5.43 0.98 

Headgear suspension and impact liner with integrated eyewear 6 6.00 0.63 

On the move 70-oz. hydration system 7 5.86 1.21 

IFAK 8 5.38 1.30 

Electric components pouch 8 4.50 1.31 

Battery pouch 8 4.50 1.31 

Pre-configured components 8 4.63 1.30 

Soldier radio 7 4.71 1.38 

200-round drum pouches 2 4.00 2.83 

Grenadier load pack 3 6.33 0.58 

Combat lifesaver load pack 5 5.80 1.30 

Assault pack 4 6.00 0.82 

Wiring harness 6 5.00 1.55 

Ammo pouches 6 5.83 1.17 

Overall comfort 8 5.38 1.19 

WPSM: LSDS 7 4.00 1.73 

WPSM: Sleep watch 4 4.25 1.26 

2. Were there any pieces of the FFW ensemble that created any safety issues or problems that 

you are aware of at this time? 

 0 Yes 

 8 No 

3. Are there any components of the FFW ensemble that you do not understand how to use, wear 

or carry? 

 0 Yes 

 8 No 
94 

4. Comments on this phase of the FFW design event. 

 No. of Responses

Everyone was very helpful and knew the equipment to help me better understand the purpose 

I like the idea of custom fitted equipment; it helps with the comfort and it makes things easier to 

access. 

1 

1 

The engineers tasked with the fitting and briefing in the equipment were very informative on the uses 

and setup of the gear. 

1 
95 

Appendix C. Movement to Contact, Days 2 and 4 

Table C-1. Movement to contact, day 2, SME notes.

ID No. COMMENTS 

From AM M-t-C, FTA ID No. 2-5 was wearing the FFW 

1 Knee pads were too long and rubbing his shin. 

His torso was nice and cool, but arms were too hot. 

2 Ballistic belt offers some support to his back but caused too many problems to be used. 

3 Grenadier had problems keeping ballistic belt pulled up above his hips. Had to continuously pull it up. 

He was not wearing suspenders, some were, but it was a request from Soldiers that the IPT did. 

Had problems with the weight of 40-mm rounds on his leg panels; weighed him down too much and 

hindered mobility. 

4 Had problems with helmet. It caught all the sweat and then at an inopportune time when he moved his 

head just right, the sweat drained down into his eyes. 

He thought the zippered vents on the pants were a good idea, but they allowed bugs access to his legs 

and groin. 

Weight of the SAW ammunition on the belt pulled it around when he got in prone position. 

His knee pads were tight when he started but became loose and bothered him. 

Battery box under right arm caused loss of mobility and a lot of pain. His arm became numb. 

Did not mind the first aid kit under left arm, because it was soft. 

Said the suspenders on the ballistic belt helped, but still too much weight on leg panels (SAW ammo). 

5 Couldn’t unzip ventilation in pants because leg panels prohibited him from reaching the zippers. 

Didn’t like the leg panels; he was wearing them with a regular belt, no ballistic belt small enough to fit 

him. 

He did like the extra padding from the leg panels when going through thorn bushes. 

From PM M-t-C, FTB ID No. 6-9 was wearing the FFW 

6 Battery under left arm pushes against bicep and changes weapon carry position. 

Keeps his right arm too high. 

Ballistic belt must be kept high up to keep from pinching. 

Ballistic belt would drop down and cause pinching between belt and chassis. 

Pants and shirt too hot, but air flow under chassis is good. 

7 Used suspenders to keep ballistic belt up. 

It worked for awhile but belt started to fall down. 

Leg panels with 40-mm rounds too heavy and interfered with his mobility on assault. 

Right leg strap loosen on assault. 

Pants and shirt too hot, but air flow under chassis is good. 

8 Leg straps falling out of keepers on leg panels. 

Health hub wire broke off during assault. 

SAW drum under left arm binds on bicep. 

Will move SAW drum to leg panel. 

Liked his helmet better than his ACH. 

Good fit, stable, straps keep it in place. 

Liked the chin strap. 

Lateral strap on right side came loose during assault. 

Knee pads would not stay in place during movement. 

Straps holding side panels came loose during movement. 

9 Knee pads turn outward. 

Pinching between belt and chassis. 

Pants zipper chafes back of thighs and butt. 

Knee pads would not stay in place during movement. 

Straps holding side panels came loose during movement. 
96 

Table C-2. Subject notes transcribed from video taken on site.

FFW Soldier Video-Taped Comments 

Movement to Contact, Day 2

• The weight of the M203 rounds mounted on the leg panels pulled the ballistic protective 

belts down. 

• The SAW gunner used makeshift suspenders to help support the weight of the belt. The 

use of the suspenders worked well. 

• The adjustment strings on the front of the chassis dangle loosely below the chassis and 

require a method to stow them. 

• The Soldiers could not keep the knee pads in place during movement. 

• The battery pack and health monitor mounted on the Soldier’s side interfered with arm 

movement and dug into the Soldier’s biceps. 

• The B-team leader wore a chassis that was too big for him, causing his chest to be 

exposed. 

• The A-team rifleman complained the helmet was hot and caused sweat to build up and 

drain into his eyes. 

• The A-team rifleman complained that when the leg panels were installed, he could not 

unzip his trousers in the sides to ventilate. 

• The B-team SAW gunner’s assault pack strap would not stay fastened. 

• The B-team SAW gunner claimed the SAW rounds got in the way of his arm movement 

when they were mounted on the side of the chassis. 

Movement to Contact AAR, Day 2

• The heart monitor’s straps chafed the Soldiers’ necks and sides. 

• Soldiers noted that the ballistic belts need suspenders to keep them in place. 

• The clips on the leg panels on the B-team SAW gunner got caught on each other, causing 

him to fall. 

• The A-team grenadier’s leg panels became loose several tomes during movement. 

• The A-team leader had difficulty fastening the chassis with the plastic clip. 

• Most of the Soldiers did not like the weapon butt stock stabilizer because they claimed it 

didn’t work. 
97 

• All Soldiers stated that the trousers and shirts were hot. 

• The A-team leader complained that the gap between the belt and chassis pinched his skin. 

• Soldiers liked the ability of the chassis to allow air flow beneath the panels. 

• When the Soldiers unzipped the side trouser legs to ventilate, their skin was exposed to 

insects and briars. They suggested sewing in a mesh material. 

• The squad leader said the Velcro12 on the uniform sleeves snagged on other equipment 

with Velcro. 

• Solders said both variations of the helmet were hot and caused sweat to build up and pour 

over the face and into the eyes. 

• Soldiers said they preferred a helmet that was adjustable up and down as well as around 

the head’s circumference. 

• Soldiers liked the weight of both helmets. 

• Soldiers liked the way the assault pack attached directly to the chassis. 

• Several soldiers said they would prefer to have cargo pockets on the trousers. 

• The B-team leader said the zipper on the rear of the trousers chafed him. 

• The squad leader said he would like a clip on the chassis to secure his weapon, too.

 12Velcro is a registered trademark of Velcro USA, Inc., Manchester, NH.
98 

Table C-3. Movement to contact and attack objective, day 2.

SAMPLE SIZE: FFW = 1 

 BASELINE = 9 

1. Using scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks shown with the equipment 

you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

MEAN RESPONSE TASKS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

BASELINE 

Ease of leg movement 6.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 7.00 6.22 

Ease of assuming prone position NR 4.00 5.00 6.00 NR 6.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.88 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 7.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.22 

Ease of arm movement 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 5.11 

Ease of torso movement 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 

Ease of head movement 7.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Ability to run 7.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 5.78 

Use of hand and arm signals 7.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 5.56 

Move through swampy areas or 

streams 

7.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 NR 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.67 

Move through thick brush 

Move through brush and vines 

7.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.50 

Ability to obtain a good sight 

picture with your weapon 

7.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.67 

Target identification 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 5.67 

Conducting IMT NR 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 

Comments (by Roster #)

3

The 203 belt needs suspenders. 

4

Lot of things on the vest get hung up, especially the gap between the vest and belt. 

Comments (by Roster #)

7

With the leg panels for the grenadier, it is very heavy on the legs; running and jumping were very difficult, just 

overall “smoked” the legs. 

8

Had a hard time running; clips on thigh mount kept rubbing together. Assault pack kept coming undone. SAW 

ammo pouch under left arm no good. Need something to catch sweat from entering eyes. 

BASELINE

The IBA is much more mobile and the load is distributed better but you should put the pads from the new one in 

there to create the same space, combine the IBA with the new vest and you guys will have some real good stuff. 

We are used to working with the IBA so it’s hard to say it’s harder or easier. 
99 

2. Using the scale below, rate the problem areas encountered with the equipment you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE PROBLEM AREAS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

 SL ATM 203 SAW RFL BTM 203 SAW RFL 

BASELINE 

Pressure points 7.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 5.78 

Hot spots 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 4.22 

Bruising on your body 7.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 5.78 

Torso chafing in front 6.00 6.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 7.00 4.22 

Torso chafing in back 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 

Arm/shoulder chafing 7.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.22 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.00 6.00 4.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 6.33 

Neck/head chafing 7.00 6.00 7.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.11 

Equipment snagging 6.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.44 

Equipment hindering movement 5.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 5.67 

Weight shifting 7.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 

Equipment pinching 7.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 

Load adjustment 7.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.78 

Access to stowed items 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 5.22 

Ability to breathe 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 4.78 

Overall comfort 5.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.22 

Comments (by Roster #)

1

Torso stayed cool, but arms were hot. Elbow pads felt weird and straps would not stay in place; legs were very hot 

and knee pads rubbed shins, zipper on the shirt digs into the chest 

2

Knee pad shifts out of place often, not used to waist belt. Knee pads need more cushion; vest does not stay fastened. 

4

Shirt collar rubbed my neck a little raw; knee pads came loose from time to time; heart monitor was good - you 

don’t realize it’s there till you take your stuff off. Kevlar13 needs some work in the band; it doesn’t size right for 

my head. 

6

Pinching between belt and vest; heavy on shoulders after a while; knee pads move too much and don’t have the 

protection of the old ones. Batteries dig into arm; arms and legs are too hot; the zipper digs into the butt while 

sitting. Also needs front pockets. 

7

Torso chafing is the Hidalgo heart monitor, movement and weight shifting is the leg panels, every step I took, the 

leg panels just move my legs 

8

Thigh pieces came loose. Kept getting snagged on clips. Blisters or hot spots on feet but nothing you can do to 

prevent that. 

 13Kevlar is a registered trademark of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
100 

9

Chassis was pinching my abdominal area against belt. 

BASELINE

IBA causes lower back pain and stiff shoulders and upper back. 

IBA needs more padding, mostly in the shoulder area. 

IBA puts pressure on your shoulders. 

Neck is too high on the IBA and it’s too hot and to breath in. 

Hidalgo stinks; sticks to the skin and rubbing causing chafing. 

The heart monitor with the IBA is not working. It’s hard to breathe. 

The IBA has no way of allowing air to come in so the heat build-up is extremely high. 

3. Using the scale below, what level of pain (if any) did you experience with the equipment you 

wore? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

MEAN RESPONSE PAIN FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

BASELINE 

Upper back 7.00 4.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 5.89 

Lower back 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 4.56 

Neck 7.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 5.44 

Head 7.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 5.89 

Torso front 6.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 5.44 

Groin 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.78 

Legs 6.00 7.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.56 

Arms 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.33 

Eyes 7.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 6.89 

Comments (by Roster #)

1

Knee pads rubbed shins; lack of padding and a ridged structure made my shoulders hurt a little. The zipper on the 

shirt digs into the chest. 

2

Shoulder causes pain; arms a little sore. 

3

Only the weight of the 203 rounds isn’t much, but moving through the terrain we just went through was rough. 

4

All that stuff seems to centralize on your hips. 

7

Torso pain is from the Hidalgo heart monitor; it rubs all over the side. Legs are painful because the load of the 

grenadier on the leg panels just makes it so heavy you get “smoked” quickly. Maybe if you could come up with 

something that attached to the body armor itself. The legs panels are just a bad idea for all those rounds. 

8

Sweat in eyes. Leg clips rubbing together cause chafing. Heart monitor piece bothered by back part of IBA. 
101 

Comments (by Roster #)

BASELINE

Again the Hidalgo. 

IBA has no padding on shoulders; causes the shoulders to start aching. The back plate rides high and bounces off 

the lower back. 

IBA rubs your head and neck raw. 

The heart monitor dug into my chest and pushed into my sternum. IBA rubbed neck and weight from it shifted from 

one shoulder to the other. 

The IBA weight is not distributed throughout the body so there is a little lower back pain after a while. With the 

ACH, heat buildup is extremely high and the padding hurts the head after wearing it for long periods of time. The 

floating neck pad moves a lot while “on the move” so you constantly have to adjust the ACH, especially when 

sweating. 

4. Did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the mission? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 

Yes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8

Nothing really hindered my ability to complete the mission. 

BASELINEDidn’t hinder my ability to complete the mission but caused more irritation than needed. Heart monitor. 

5. Did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6

Maybe a little looser on the mag pouches so the mags can be stowed faster with another mag already in the pouch. 

6. Did you move any of your equipment while moving to the objective to a different location to 

make your job easier or less irritable? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 

Yes 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 

Comments (by Roster #)

1

I adjusted the tightening straps for the knee pads to stop the rubbing. 

2

Knee pads I moved them back on my knee for support. 

3
102 

Adjusted the belt several times. 

9

I have not worn it enough to make up my mind. 

10

Knee pads shift. 

BASELINE

Just the ACH because it keeps coming loose. I just readjusted it back to where I wear it. 

Shifting the weight around from shoulder to shoulder and rubbing of the neck. 

7. Were you able to reach all your ammunition magazines? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

9

Yes because i had a drop bag. 

8. Were you able to stow your expended magazines? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 

Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Comments (by Roster No.)

8

Didn’t use up any of my magazines. 

FFW FIRE TEAM ONLY:

9. Did any of the electronic components/wires interfere with your ability to carry combat 

equipment and/or munitions? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

4

Electronics should be moved out of sight and mind (the back or back of the belt would be good). 
103 

10. Are there any portions of the chassis that are “fixed in place” that you would move if you 

could? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

No 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Yes 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

2

Butt stock pad, I would take it off. 

7

The latch that closes it. 

11. In which tactical situations would you consider wearing the following options? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES SHOULDER PLATE 

INSERTS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 

Defense 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 

Counter-attack 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES NECK PROTECTOR 

INSERTS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Defense 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Counter-attack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES BELLY PANEL INSERTS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Attack 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 

Defense 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Counter-attack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES THIGH INSERTS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Movement to contact 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Attack 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 

Defense 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 

Counter-attack 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 
104 

Comments (by Roster No.)

1

All of the extra protectors would be most beneficial to a gunner in a HMMWV (.50 cal or MK19 gunner, D Co.). 

4

Thigh panels should remain completely optional as they will not help SAW gunners at all. 

12. Were you able to reach your individual first aid kit? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

13. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the chassis? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 

Yes 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

6

Locking it in. The hook idea stinks; I would just use clips. 

7

When putting on the Velcro, pads come off. 

14. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the chassis? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Yes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

7

The latch that closes the system. 

15. Did you modify any tactics or techniques because of the FFW equipment? 

FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BASELINE 

No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
105 

16. How would you change the FFW ensemble you wore if you could? 

Comments (by Roster No.)

1

Use a lighter material for the camouflaged part of the uniform and make the knee pads shorter. Find a way to 

remove the zipper on the shirt or pad it somehow. 

4

The pants need mesh so when you unzip them you don’t get bugs up your rear and you will definitely need to unzip 

them; they are hot. 

6

Get rid of the little stuff like the disconnector on the side with the wires; the shooting platforms change to something 

like on a shooting vest. 

7

The cords that tighten the front and back just dangle, the latch that closes in the front move it to the center some 

way, and make the camelback bigger. 

8

Wearing the leg pieces, can’t get to pockets. 

9

Make the drop legs lighter and give the belt suspenders. 

FFW HELMET ASSEMBLY ONLY:

17. Using the scale below, please address each concern/issue with your level of comfort while 

wearing the FFW helmet during the exercise? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

MEAN RESPONSE CONCERN/ISSUE FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Pressure to the top of head while 

wearing helmet 

7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 NR 

Pressure to the side of head (along the 

straps) 

7.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 NR 

Comfort level of the FFW helmet with 

foam liner 

7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 NR 

Comfort level of the FFW helmet with 

rigid liner 

7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 NR NR 

Comments (by Roster #)

1

I used the ACH/MICH. 
106 

18. Using the scale below, please evaluate the level of problems encountered with the following 

characteristics. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS FFW 

Roster No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Heat buildup with foam liner 7.00 7.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 NR 

Heat buildup with rigid liner 7.00 7.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 NR NR 

Perspiration buildup with the foam liner 7.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 NR 

Perspiration buildup with the rigid liner 7.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 2.00 3.00 NR NR 

Comments (by Roster #)

1

I used the ACH/MICH. 

7

The FFW is very hot; it allows air to flow through, but I think it is hotter than the IBA while “on the move”. 

8

Need something to catch sweat from entering eyes. 

Sweat a big problem. Irritates the eyes while moving or in motion. 

9

Helmets are hot and it is Georgia; there is not much you can do. 
107 

Table C-4. Questionnaires categorized, movement to contact, baseline versus FFW, day 2 only. 

I categorized the Likert scale means using the following systems: 

Preference Difference 

Strong Preference > .99 

Moderate Preference .25 - .99 

No Clear Preference < .25 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the FFW system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Hot spots 3.88 5.50 -1.63 

Ability to breathe 4.50 6.13 -1.63 

Torso chafing in front 3.88 5.00 -1.13 

Neck/head chafing 4.88 6.00 -1.13 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.00 6.00 -1.00 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the FFW system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Torso chafing in back 4.75 5.63 -0.88 

Access to stowed items 5.25 6.13 -0.88 

Use of hand and arm signals 5.50 6.00 -0.50 

Overall comfort 4.25 4.75 -0.50 

Items for which there was no clear preference for either system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with your weapon 5.50 5.75 -0.25 

Target identification 5.50 5.75 -0.25 

Ease of head movement 5.86 6.00 -0.14 

Ease of torso movement 5.00 5.13 -0.13 

Ease of arm movement 5.13 5.13 0.00 

Equipment snagging 5.25 5.25 0.00 

Pressure points 5.63 5.50 0.13 

Equipment pinching 4.75 4.63 0.13 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the Baseline system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.88 5.57 0.30 

Bruising on your body 5.63 5.25 0.38 

Move through swampy areas or streams 5.67 5.29 0.38 

Load adjustment 5.88 5.38 0.50 

Move through thick brush and vines 5.29 4.63 0.66 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.25 5.38 0.88 

Weight shifting 5.00 4.13 0.88 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the Baseline system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.13 4.88 1.25 

Equipment hindering movement 5.75 4.38 1.38 

Conducting IMT 5.00 3.50 1.50 

Ability to run 5.63 3.88 1.75 

Ease of leg movement 6.13 3.75 2.38 
108 

Table C-5. Movement to contact, what they wore, day 4.

Position FFW BASE 

Team 

leader 

Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches/six 

magazines front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 One battery left side 

 Camel-back back left 

 Leader’s computer back 

 Battery right side 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

IPA with 

 First aid kit front 

 Three ammunition pouches 

with six magazines 

 One smoke front 

 Camel back 

M203 Soldier variant helmet w/ drop down 

Chassis with 

 Four 40-mm rounds right side 

 Four 40-mm rounds on left front 

 Four 40-mm rounds on right front 

 Three ammunition pouches lower 

front 

 SA display right front 

 CLS left side 

 One battery under left arm 

 Camel back 

 Computer lower back 

 One battery on right rear 

 One radio right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IPA with 

 Six 40-mm rounds front 

 Three ammunition pouches 

with six magazines 

 Four 40-mm rounds left side 

 IFAK back 

 Camel back 

 Two 40-mm rounds right side 

SAW Leader variant helmet w/glasses 

Chassis with 

 Two 100-rd on belt left and right 

 Display right side 

 CLS left side 

 Battery lower back 

 Health hub beside battery 

 SA box lower right rear 

Shoulder armor 

Belly armor 

Ballistic belt with suspenders 

ACH helmet 

Protective eye ware 

IPA with 

 First aid pouch upper left front 

 Four 100-rd ammunition lower 

front 

 Two grenade pouches upper 

front 

 Camel back 

Rifleman Chassis with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 Camel back 

 CLS back 

 Butt pack back 

 Health hub back 

 Radio right side 

 Display right side 

Ballistic belt 

Belly armor 

Shoulder armor 

IPA with 

 Three ammunition pouches front 

 One smoke front 

 IFAK left side 

 Camel back 

 CLS back 
109 

Table C-6. Questionnaire results, day 4, movement to contact and attack objective, day 4.

DUTY POSITIONS/SAMPLE SIZE: 

FIRE TEAM LEADER (FTL) = 2 

AUTOMATIC RIFLEMAN (AR) = 2 

GRENADIER (G) = 2 

RIFLEMAN (R) = 2 

1. Using scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks shown with the equipment 

you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

MEAN RESPONSE 

TASKS FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Ease of leg movement 6.50 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.50 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 

Ease of arm movement 5.50 5.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 6.00 

Ease of torso movement 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.50 

Ease of head movement 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 

Ability to run 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 5.50 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 

Move through thick brush and vines 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with 

your weapon 

6.50 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Target identification 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 

Conducting IMT 6.50 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-G

Without the leg panels, I had no trouble at all moving through the brush or running. 

With putting all the gear on the chassis it was a lot easier to move all around. 

1 

1 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-R

The ballistic belt around the outside of my hips restricted me from sprinting. 1 

BASELINE-AR

Try using some fog-resistant Rainex on eye protection to help reduce fogging and sweat buildup. 1 

2. Using the scale below, rate the problem areas encountered with the equipment you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 
110 

MEAN RESPONSE 

PROBLEM AREAS FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Pressure points 6.50 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 5.50 

Hot spots 6.50 4.50 5.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.00 5.50 

Bruising on your body 5.50 4.50 6.00 7.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Torso chafing in front 6.50 6.00 4.50 5.50 6.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 

Torso chafing in back 6.50 5.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 

Arm/shoulder chafing 4.00 4.50 6.50 7.00 5.00 5.50 6.50 6.00 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.50 4.50 6.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 

Neck/head chafing 6.00 4.00 6.50 5.50 6.50 6.00 7.00 5.50 

Equipment snagging 6.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 7.00 6.50 

Equipment hindering movement 6.00 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 

Weight shifting 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 5.50 4.50 

Equipment pinching 4.50 4.50 4.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.50 5.50 

Load adjustment 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Access to stowed items 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 5.50 7.00 4.50 6.50 

Ability to breathe 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.50 4.50 

Overall comfort 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 7.00 4.50 4.00 

FFW-FTL

Shoulder and belly panel hold in the heat and don’t let air flow. 1 

FFW-AR

Left leg knee pad rubbing. Lower back being rubbed by back belt. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-G

Four-strap heart monitor scratches the collar bone and side. 1 

A few times, the belly armor and the chassis pinched the abdominal area but it was nothing that 

was too uncomfortable. 

1 

FFW-R

I have no complaints. 1 

The flat heart monitor band scratches the side of my body under my left arm, back, and it rubbed 

my neck. 

1 

BASELINE-AR

The two-strap heart bra stinks because it eats your neck away. 1 

BASELINE-G

The IBA pulls down on the shoulders. 1 

3. Using the scale below, what level of pain (if any) did you experience with the equipment you 

wore? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 
111 

MEAN RESPONSE 

PAIN FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

Upper back 6.00 6.50 5.50 7.00 4.00 7.00 4.50 6.00 

Lower back 7.00 4.50 4.50 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.50 4.00 

Neck 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.50 4.50 5.50 7.00 4.50 

Head 7.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 

Torso front 7.00 6.50 4.50 6.50 5.00 5.50 7.00 6.00 

Groin 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 4.50 6.50 

Legs 7.00 6.50 6.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

Arms 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

Eyes 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 

FFW-FTL

Pinching between belt and vest. 1 

FFW-AR

Back being rubbed by belt. Lower leg being rubbed by knee pad. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-G

Back pain is just from wearing the gear and getting used to how the weight is set up. 1 

4. Did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the mission? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5. Did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

No 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6. Did you move any of your equipment while moving to the objective to a different location to 

make your job easier or less irritable? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

No 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 

Yes 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 

NR 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
112 

FFW-AR

Electronics to the lower back. 1 

FFW-R

Ab plate prevented pinching. 1 

Move the belt up. My belt didn’t have any suspenders. 1 

BASELINE-AR

The glasses got too sweaty. I stuck them in the MOLLE on my vest. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

BASELINE-R

Shifted my IBA around on my shoulders. 1 

7. Were you able to reach all your ammunition magazines? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Yes 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 

NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

8. Were you able to stow your expended magazines? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW BASELINE 

FTL AR G R FTL AR G R 

No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Yes 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 

BASELINE-G

It was hard to stow them. 1 

BASELINE-R

I had to put them in my pocket. 1 

FIRE TEAM ONLY:

9. Did any of the electronic components/wires interfere with your ability to carry combat 

equipment and/or munitions? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 2 2 2 2 

Yes 0 0 0 0 
113 

10. Are there any portions of the chassis that are “fixed in place” that you would move if you 

could? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 2 0 2 2 

Yes 0 1 0 0 

NR 0 1 0 0 

11. In which tactical situations would you consider wearing the following options? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

SHOULDER PLATE FFW 

INSERTS FTL AR G R 

Movement to contact 1 0 1 1 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 1 1 

Defense 1 0 1 1 

Counter-attack 1 0 1 1 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

NECK PROTECTOR FFW 

INSERTS FTL AR G R 

Movement to contact 0 0 0 0 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 

Attack 0 0 0 0 

Defense 0 0 1 0 

Counter-attack 0 0 0 0 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

BELLY PANNEL FFW 

INSERTS FTL AR G R 

Movement to contact 1 0 1 1 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 

Attack 1 0 1 1 

Defense 1 0 1 1 

Counter-attack 1 0 1 1 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

THIGH INSERTS FFW 

FTL AR G R 

Movement to contact 0 0 1 1 

Reconnaissance 0 0 0 0 

Attack 1 0 1 1 

Defense 1 0 1 1 

Counter-attack 1 0 1 1 
114 

12. Were you able to reach your Individual First Aid Kit? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 0 0 0 0 

Yes 2 2 2 2 

13. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the chassis? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 1 2 2 2 

Yes 1 0 0 0 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-FTL

A little harder with the shoulder pad. 1 

14. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the chassis? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 2 2 2 2 

Yes 0 0 0 0 

15. Did you modify any tactics or techniques because of the FFW equipment? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

FFW 

FTL AR G R 

No 2 2 2 2 

Yes 0 0 0 0 

16. How would you change the FFW ensemble you wore if you could? 

Comments No. of Responses

FFW-G

Get rid of the shoulder pads for firing and put some flat rubber or something there. 1 
115 

FFW HELMET ASSEMBLY ONLY:

17. Using the scale below, please address each concern/issue with your level of comfort while 

wearing the FFW helmet during the exercise? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

MEAN RESPONSE 

PAIN CONCERNS FFW 

FTL AR G R 

Pressure to the top of the head from FFW helmet 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 

Pressure to the sides of the head from FFW helmet and straps 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 

Comfort level of the FFW helmet with foam liner 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.50 

Comfort level of the FFW helmet with rigid liner 7.00 4.50 6.00 5.00 

18. Using the scale below, please evaluate the level of problems encountered with the following 

characteristics. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE 

HEAT ISSUES FFW 

FTL AR G R 

Heat buildup with foam liner 5.50 NR 5.00 6.50 

Heat buildup with rigid liner 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 

Perspiration buildup with the foam liner 5.50 NR 5.00 6.50 

Perspiration buildup with the rigid liner 7.00 4.50 3.50 6.00 

Table C-7. FFW Soldier video taped comments.

Movement to Contact, Day 4

• The B-team leader’s belt was rubbing against the chassis and made noises while 

patrolling. 

• The SAW gunner’s belt shifted and was not balanced when he removed rounds from one 

side to load his weapon. 

• The rifleman’s neck was chafed by the medical alert harness 

• The Soldiers claimed the wool shirt was hotter than the synthetic material 
116 

Table C-8. Movement to contact, baseline versus FFW, day 4 only.

I categorized the Likert scale MEANS using the following systems: 

Preference Difference 

Strong Preference > .99 

Moderate Preference .25 - .99 

No Clear Preference < .25 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the FFW system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Access to stowed items 5.88 6.50 -0.63 

Ability to breathe 5.88 6.50 -0.63 

Move through swampy areas or streams 6.20 6.80 -0.60 

Overall comfort 5.25 5.75 -0.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.38 6.75 -0.38 

Items for which there was no strong preference for either system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Move through thick brush and vines 6.13 6.38 -0.25 

Ability to obtain a good sight picture with your weapon 6.38 6.63 -0.25 

Torso chafing in front 5.38 5.63 -0.25 

Weight shifting 5.75 6.00 -0.25 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.25 6.43 -0.18 

Ease of torso movement 6.00 6.13 -0.13 

Pressure points 6.13 6.25 -0.13 

Hot spots 5.75 5.88 -0.13 

Ease of head movement 6.50 6.50 0.00 

Ease of leg movement 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Target identification 6.75 6.63 0.13 

Torso chafing in back 6.38 6.25 0.13 

Equipment snagging 6.50 6.38 0.13 

Load adjustment 6.63 6.50 0.13 

Ease of arm movement 6.25 6.00 0.25 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.75 5.50 0.25 

Items for which there was a moderate preference for the Baseline system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Equipment hindering movement 6.63 6.25 0.38 

Conducting IMT 6.67 6.17 0.50 

Ability to run 6.63 5.88 0.75 

Bruising on your body 6.50 5.75 0.75 

Neck/head chafing 6.25 5.50 0.75 

Items for which there was a strong preference for the Baseline system: 

Question Base FFW Diff 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.63 5.63 1.00 

Equipment pinching 6.13 5.13 1.00 
117 

Appendix D. MOUT Activities 

Table D-1. Room clearing in MOUT, sample size = 8.

 A – FFW W/BELT 

 B – FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT 

 C - BASELINE 

1. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks shown with the equipment 

you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

MEAN RESPONSE TASKS A B C 

Ease of leg movement 5.12 5.00 5.88 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.33 4.00 6.25 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.80 5.00 6.33 

Ease of arm movement 5.50 5.13 6.00 

Ease of torso movement 5.75 5.38 5.50 

Ease of head movement 5.75 3.13 5.75 

Ability to run 4.75 4.29 6.13 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.33 5.17 6.00 

Move through doorways 5.75 5.38 5.75 

Move through mouse holes 4.50 4.00 5.43 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.63 5.50 6.00 

Ability to engage enemy 5.88 5.50 6.25 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.25 6.25 

Move through windows 4.00 3.25 6.00 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.00 4.50 6.67 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.00 5.88 6.13 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure 

position) 

5.71 5.25 5.63 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Can’t run with the drop armor on the legs; pants are ridiculously hot. I would rather fight naked 

but could be good for fall and winter, knee pads bothering me today some chafing in the calves. 

1 

Leg panels restrict speed, but slow is smooth and smooth is fast. 1 

Legs being restrictive when running. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Dog collar does not allow me to look up. Blocks ventilation and traps heat in more. 1 

My situational awareness was decreased due to the addition of the neck collar; it gave me an 

enclosed feeling. 

1 

Neck brace prevents me from moving my neck. 1 

The neck guard takes away from the mobility of the head but it would be good for a 50 cal. gunner; 

I didn’t like the shoulder or gut plate. 

1 

Up armor for turrets only. 1 
118 

C-BASELINE

Heart monitor too bulky for the IBA. 1 

My heart monitor opened my IBA up. 1 

The IBA is pretty constraining to mobility. 1 

2. Using the scale below, rate the problem areas encountered on this exercise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE PROBLEM AREAS A B C 

Pressure points 6.25 6.25 6.00 

Hot spots 5.63 5.50 5.86 

Bruising on your body 5.88 5.50 5.43 

Torso chafing in front 5.88 5.75 4.50 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 5.63 5.29 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.88 4.88 5.71 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.63 5.63 5.83 

Neck/head chafing 6.38 5.37 5.71 

Equipment snagging 6.50 5.00 5.71 

Equipment hindering movement 5.63 3.88 6.29 

Weight shifting 6.13 6.25 5.29 

Equipment pinching 5.38 5.63 5.14 

Load adjustment 5.75 6.00 5.71 

Access to stowed items 5.88 6.00 5.86 

Ability to breathe 5.75 4.88 4.33 

Overall comfort 5.25 4.13 4.57 

Armor preventing flexing 6.00 5.38 4.86 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Fix the pants; way too hot. But the ventilation in the chassis is the one really good thing you got 

going. 

1 

Bottom of shin guard rubbed my shin; it’s starting to become sensitive. I had a little rubbing of my 

neck and thighs; had a slight discomfort by straps. 

1 

Shoulder straps rubbing collar bone. 1 

Vest makes it hard to breathe because it is tight around the upper body. 1 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Dog collar restricts head movement with leader helmet. 1 

The neck pro was just too constraining to movement. 2 

Torso chafing; once again is Hidalgo heart monitor, and movement is slightly restricted by leg 

panels. 

1 

C-BASELINE

Heart monitor. 1 

Heart monitor being pressed against skin by IBA. 2 

Medic strap pushes in my chest with the IBA on it. Also hurts me on breathing. 1 

The IBA tends to shift from shoulder to shoulder. 1 
119 

3. Did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the mission? 

 A B C 

No 5 4 8 

Yes 2 4 0 

NR 1 0 0 

A-FFW W/BELT

My drop armor slowed my run big time. 

The stack was way too big moving on the building. 

1 

1 

I couldn’t run as fast as normal because of the drop leg. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Dog collar stops head movement. 1 

Neck movement. 1 

Neck pro just took away from situational awareness. 1 

4. Did any of the equipment you wore help your ability to complete the mission? 

 A B C 

No 7 8 8 

Yes 1 0 0 

A-FFW W/BELT

Drop mag pouch; reduces mag change time. 1 

5. Did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

 A B C 

No 5 7 8 

Yes 1 1 0 

NR 2 0 0 

A-FFW W/BELT

Can’t run, can’t hide. 1 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Can’t look, can’t acquire target. 1 

6. Did you move any of your equipment while moving to the objective to make your job easier or 

less irritating? 

 A B C 

No 7 7 8 

Yes 0 1 0 

NR 1 0 0 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT
120 

The shoulder pad was nice. 1 

7. Were you able to reach all your ammunition magazines? 

 A B C 

No 0 0 0 

Yes 8 8 8 

8. Were you able to stow your expended magazines? 

 A B C 

No 0 0 1 

Yes 7 8 7 

NR 1 0 0 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Drop pouch. 1 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Magazine drop pouch. 1 

C-BASELINE

Put them in my cargo pocket. 1 

9. Did any of the electronic components/wires interfere with your ability to carry combat 

equipment? 

 A B C 

No 8 8 

Yes 0 0 

NA 

10. Are there any items of the chassis that are “fixed in place” that you would move if you could? 

 A B C 

No 3 4 

Yes 5 4 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

All electronics to the back except the little display screen. 1 

For guys with bigger upper bodies, I would widen the shoulder part of it. 1 

Medical computer. 1 

The batteries. 1 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Batteries. 1 

Medical monitor. 1 

11. In which tactical situations would you consider wearing the following options? 
121 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

A B C 

a b c d a b c d 

Movement to contact 4 0 2 6 3 0 3 5 

Reconnaissance 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 

Attack 5 1 4 6 6 1 4 6 

Defense 4 2 4 5 3 3 4 6 

Counter-attack 4 0 3 6 2 0 3 6 

NA 

 *a-shoulder plate; b-neck protector; c-Belly panel; d-Thigh inserts 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Neck pro would be good for convoy operations. 1 

12. Were you able to reach your individual first aid kit? 

 A B C 

No 0 0 

Yes 8 8 

NA 

13. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the chassis? 

 A B C 

No 8 6 

Yes 0 2 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Neck pro was a problem getting adjusted by myself. 1 

The dog collar. 1 

14. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the chassis? 

 A B C 

No 8 7 

Yes 0 1 

NA 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

The latch needs to be filed or just change the whole concept. 1 

15. Did you modify any tactics or techniques because of the equipment? 

 A B C 

No 8 8 

Yes 0 0 

NA 

16. Is there anything you especially liked about the FFW ensemble and the two up-armor kits 
122 

(MOUT and Patrolling kits)? 

 A B C 

No 5 4 

Yes 0 4 

NR 3 0 

NA 

17. How would you change the FFW ensemble you wore if you could? 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

I like the shoulder and gut plates. 2 

There is more access to gear and equipment. 1 

Lose the dog collar. Stack all the electronic equipment in the back that way you have more room to 

stow other equipment. 

1 

The neck is not good for dismounted soldiers. 1 

FFW HELMET ASSEMBLY ONLY:

18. Using the scale below, please address each concern/issue with your level of comfort while 

wearing the FFW helmet during the exercise? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

MEAN RESPONSE CONCERN/ISSUE A B C 

a. Pressure to top of head while wearing helmet 6.63 6.62 

b. Pressure to side of head (along the straps) 6.13 6.38 

c. Comfort level of FFW helmet with foam liner 6.50 6.83 

d. Comfort level of FFW helmet with rigid liner 5.83 5.60 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

I can’t completely customize it to my head. 1 

If the ear plugs aren’t in the right place, it puts a little pressure on the head. 1 

19. Using the scale below, please evaluate the level of problems encountered with the following 

characteristics of the FFW helmet. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS A B C 

a. Heat buildup with foam liner 5.50 5.83 

b. Heat buildup with rigid liner 4.50 5.80 

c. Perspiration buildup with the foam liner 5.50 5.83 

d. Perspiration buildup with the rigid liner 4.83 5.33 

NA 

A-FFW W/BELT
123 

The helmet got heated fairly well in the top. 1 

Try and change the color from black. 1 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

I liked the helmet a lot more than the ACH. 1 

Table D-2. Room excursion questionnaire results, sample size = 8.

1. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks shown with the equipment 

you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

TASKS MEAN RESPONSE 

Ease of leg movement 6.63 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.75 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.83 

Ease of arm movement 6.50 

Ease of torso movement 6.50 

Ease of head movement 6.50 

Ability to run 6.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.50 

Move through doorways 6.75 

Move through mouse holes 6.00 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 6.63 

Ability to engage enemy 6.50 

Conducting IMT 7.00 

Move through windows 6.00 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.75 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.71 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position) 6.25 

Comments No. of Responses

Everything was extremely comfortable, allowing for smooth mission execution. 1 

Movement was great for all in team. 

The MOUT site could have been more realistic. 

1 

1 

I got rid of the leg panels and positioned everything on the chassis, I move more freely and a lot 

faster and smoother. 

1 

2. Using the scale below, rate the problem areas encountered on this exercise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 
124 

PROBLEM AREAS MEAN RESPONSE 

Pressure points 6.62 

Hot spots 6.38 

Bruising on your body 6.38 

Torso chafing in front 6.25 

Torso chafing in back 6.25 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.75 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.62 

Neck/head chafing 6.38 

Equipment snagging 6.25 

Equipment hindering movement 6.50 

Weight shifting 6.62 

Equipment pinching 5.88 

Load adjustment 6.50 

Access to stowed items 6.50 

Ability to breathe 6.25 

Overall comfort 6.00 

Armor preventing flexing 6.50 

Comments No. of Responses

Hot brass went down the back of my FFW and burned me. 1 

Moving the battery to the back right of vest was great; wouldn’t change it. 1 

Shoulder straps rubbing collar bone. 1 

3. Did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the mission? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

4. Did any of the equipment you wore help your ability to complete the 

mission? 

No 6 

Yes 1 

NR 1 

Got rid of the leg panels and positioned all rounds on front of chassis. 1 

The way we were allowed to configure helped 100%. 1 

5. Did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

6. Did you move any of your equipment while moving to the objective to make your job easier or 

less irritating? 

No 8 

Yes 0 
125 

7. Were you able to reach all your ammunition magazines? 

No 0 

Yes 8 

8. Were you able to stow your expended magazines? 

No 0 

Yes 8 

Comments No. of Responses

Drop pouch. 1 

9. Did any of the electronic components/wires interfere with your ability to carry combat 

equipment? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

But wires do get caught. 1 

10. Are there any items of the chassis that are “fixed in place” that you would move if you 

could? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

11. In which tactical situations would you consider wearing the following options? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

 a b c d 

Movement to contact 4 0 4 5 

Reconnaissance 1 0 1 2 

Attack 5 1 4 5 

Defense 4 2 4 5 

Counter-attack 4 0 4 5 

 *a-shoulder plate; b-neck protector; c-Belly panel; d-Thigh inserts 

12. Were you able to reach your individual first aid kit? 

No 1 

Yes 7 

Comments No. of Responses

I placed it on the back of the chassis because it needs rounds before I need first aid. 1 
126 

13. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the chassis? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

14. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the chassis? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

15. Did you modify any tactics or techniques because of the equipment? 

No 8 

Yes 0 

16. Is there anything you especially liked about the FFW ensemble and the two up-armor kits 

(MOUT and Patrolling kits)? 

No 5 

Yes 2 

NR 1 

Comments No. of Responses

Added the shoulder up armor. 

Moved the electronic from under right arm to the back to ease the comfort. 

1 

1 

I like all the rounds configured on the chassis. I would get rid of the leg panels. 1 

Ventilation. 1 

17. How would you change the FFW ensemble you wore if you could? 

FFW HELMET ASSEMBLY ONLY:

18. Using the scale below, please address each concern/issue with your level of comfort while 

wearing the FFW helmet during the exercise? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

CONCERN/ISSUE MEAN RESPONSE 

a. Pressure to top of head while wearing helmet 6.38 

b. Pressure to side of head (along the straps) 6.25 

c. Comfort level of FFW helmet with foam liner 6.50 

d. Comfort level of FFW helmet with rigid liner 6.00 

19. Using the scale below, please evaluate the level of problems encountered with the following 

characteristics of the FFW helmet. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 
127 

CHARACTERISTICS MEAN RESPONSE 

a. Heat buildup with foam liner 6.17 

b. Heat buildup with rigid liner 5.17 

c. Perspiration buildup with the foam liner 6.17 

d. Perspiration buildup with the rigid liner 5.17 

Did not even notice it was on. 1 

Table D-3. Loft clearing in MOUT questionnaire results, sample size = 8.

 A – FFW w/BELT 

 B – FFW w/UP ARMOR KIT 

 C - BASELINE 

1. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks shown with the equipment 

you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

MEAN RESPONSE TASKS FFW 

w/BELT 

FFW w/UP 

ARMOR 

KIT 

BASELINE 

Ease of leg movement 4.88 5.50 6.13 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.50 4.75 6.33 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.71 6.00 6.17 

Ease of arm movement 5.63 5.63 6.13 

Ease of torso movement 5.88 6.00 5.63 

Ease of head movement 6.13 4.13 6.13 

Ability to run 5.12 4.63 6.00 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.17 5.67 5.86 

Move through doorways 5.71 5.75 5.88 

Move through mouseholes 2.88 3.63 4.50 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.14 6.25 5.88 

Ability to engage enemy 5.29 5.17 6.29 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.75 5.83 

Move through windows 4.00 3.50 5.75 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 4.29 4.38 5.71 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.25 6.13 6.13 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position) 5.00 5.13 5.75 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Going through narrow doorways side of chassis a little bulky. 

Leg straps came undone somewhere along the mission. 

2 

1 

Got snagged up in the window. 1 

In the mousehole of the loft, had problems getting through. Battery kept getting stuck on way out 

and on way in, sides of chassis got stuck. 

1 
128 

Comments No. of Responses

When I went through the mouse hole, the CLS bag caught. 

The weight makes it harder to maintain a crouched position for an extended period of time. 

1 

1 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Neck guard was stopping the head movement. 2 

C-BASELINE

Going into the loft with the RFI on was no problem; nothing got snagged like the FFW gear. 1 

The gear is in front so movement through small spaces is a lot easier. 1 

2. Using the scale below, rate the problem areas encountered on this exercise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 

MEAN RESPONSE PROBLEM AREAS A B C 

Pressure points 5.00 5.88 6.29 

Hot spots 5.75 6.13 6.29 

Bruising on your body 6.25 5.25 5.71 

Torso chafing in front 5.71 5.75 5.29 

Torso chafing in back 5.75 5.75 6.00 

Arm/shoulder chafing 6.00 4.88 5.57 

Leg/thigh chafing 4.88 5.37 6.29 

Neck/head chafing 5.38 4.75 5.29 

Equipment snagging 5.63 4.25 5.29 

Equipment hindering movement 3.75 4.00 4.86 

Weight shifting 3.88 6.00 5.57 

Equipment pinching 6.25 5.38 6.00 

Load adjustment 5.25 6.13 6.00 

Access to stowed items 6.25 6.00 6.33 

Ability to breathe 6.25 5.00 4.00 

Overall comfort 6.13 5.00 5.00 

Armor preventing flexing 4.75 5.75 5.14 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Went fairly smooth 

Cannot breathe good. 1 

Chafing is due to Hidalgo heart monitor. 1 

Shoulder straps starting to be irritating to shoulders. 

Equipment snagging in little cubby doorways. 

1 

2 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Chafing is from Hidalgo heart monitor. 

Leg panels snagged through the loft. 

1 

1 

Medical computer needs to be moved. 1 

Neck pro got in the way. 1 

We get caught going through the mousehole because of our size. 1 

C-BASELINE

Heart monitor stinks when wearing IBA; too much rubbing. 1 

Medic belt pushes in on chest; hard to get through hole with IBA. 1 
129 

3. Did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the mission? 

 A B C 

No 4 5 7 

Yes 4 2 1 

A-FFW W/BELT

Going through the loft entry. 1 

Got stuck in the hole. 1 

Vest too wide for small openings. 1 

Leg restriction. 1 

B-FFW W/UP ARMOR KIT

Dog collar. 1 

Neck guard and CLS bag snagged going through the hole neck guard gives limited range of head. 1 

Neck movement. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

C-BASELINE

My butt pack snagged when I climbed the stairs to get through the mouse hole. 1 

4. Did any of the equipment you wore help your ability to complete the mission? 

 A B C 

No 8 8 7 

Yes 0 0 1 

A-FFW W/BELT

Having round ready available on chassis. 1 

C-BASELINE

Could get into the loft a lot faster and easier without any snags. 1 

5. Did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

 A B C 

No 6 7 7 

Yes 1 1 0 

NR 1 0 1 

A-FFW W/BELT

Being stuck in small openings makes you a stationary target. 1 

6. Did you move any of your equipment while moving to the objective to make your job easier or 

less irritating? 

 A B C 

No 7 6 8 

Yes 1 0 0 

NR 0 2 0 
130 

A-FFW W/BELT

The “breath-ability” of the vest. 1 

7. Were you able to reach all your ammunition magazines? 

 A B C 

No 0 0 0 

Yes 8 8 7 

NR 0 0 1 

8. Were you able to stow your expended magazines? 

 A B C 

No 1 0 1 

Yes 7 8 7 

NR 1 0 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Drop pouch on leg armor. 1 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Drop pouch on leg for my expended magazines. 1 

C-BASELINE

Place on my cargo pocket. 1 

9. Did any of the electronic components/wires interfere with your ability to carry combat 

equipment? 

 A B C 

No 8 0 

Yes 0 7 

NR 0 1 

NA 

10. Are there any items of the chassis that are “fixed in place” that you would move if you could? 

 A B C 

No 2 3 

Yes 6 4 

NR 0 1 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Batteries. 3 

Electronics to back. 1 

I would not wear the leg inserts or the waist belt. 1 

The medical diagnostic computer under right arm. Would move it to the back. 1 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

I would not wear the up armor in mount. 1 

The latch that closes the chassis; try to work something in the middle or a zipper. 1 
131 

11. In which tactical situations would you consider wearing the following options? 

NUMBER OF RESPONSES 

A B C 

a b c d a b c d 

Movement to contact 2 0 0 4 3 0 5 5 

Reconnaissance 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 

Attack 4 1 1 5 6 1 5 6 

Defense 3 4 1 4 5 3 6 6 

Counter-attack 1 0 0 2 4 0 5 6 

NA 

 *a-shoulder plate; b-neck protector; c-Belly panel; d-Thigh inserts 

12. Were you able to reach your individual first aid kit? 

 A B C 

No 0 0 

Yes 8 8 NA 

13. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the chassis? 

 A B C 

No 7 6 

Yes 1 2 NA 

A-FFW W/BELT

Hooking the latch; get rid of it. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Neck pro was in the way. 1 

Shoulder pad. 1 

14. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the chassis? 

 A B C 

No 7 8 

Yes 1 0 NA 

A-FFW W/BELT

The latch; had someone to pull it to get it off. 1 

15. Did you modify any tactics or techniques because of the equipment? 

 A B C 

No 7 7 

Yes 1 0 

NR 0 1 

NA 

A-FFW W/BELT

Climbing the ladder. 1 
132 

16. Is there anything you especially liked about the FFW ensemble and the two up-armor kits 

(MOUT and Patrolling kits)? 

 A B C 

No 5 4 

Yes 2 3 

NR 1 1 

NA 

A-FFW W/BELT

The layout of the FFW is great, but I would fix the latch that closes it. 1 

Yes, because it breathes; and no, on the neck guard. 1 

Comments No. of Responses

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Access to equipment. 1 

Move the medical information piece to the rear. 1 

The shoulder and gut guard, I didn’t feel them and it’s more protection. 1 

17. How would you change the FFW ensemble you wore if you could? 

FFW HELMET ASSEMBLY ONLY:

18. Using the scale below, please address each concern/issue with your level of comfort while 

wearing the FFW helmet during the exercise? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

painful 

 Moderate 

pain 

 No pain at all 

MEAN RESPONSE CONCERN/ISSUE A B C 

a. Pressure to top of head while wearing helmet 6.67 6.25 

b. Pressure to side of head (along the straps) 6.43 6.13 

c. Comfort level of FFW helmet with foam liner 6.60 6.33 

d. Comfort level of FFW helmet with rigid liner 6.17 6.00 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Did notice that on the Soldier version of the FFW helmet that when you pull down the goggles it is 

on the top of the ears. 

1 

B-FFW W/UP-ARMOR KIT

Works well helmet stays in place even when hitting your head. 1 

19. Using the scale below, please evaluate the level of problems encountered with the following 

characteristics of the FFW helmet. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot A few None 
133 

MEAN RESPONSE 

CHARACTERISTICS

A B C 

a. Heat build-up with foam liner 5.17 5.17 

b. Heat build-up with rigid liner 4.67 4.83 

c. Perspiration build-up with the foam liner 5.33 5.83 

d. Perspiration build-up with the rigid liner 5.00 5.17 

NA 

Comments No. of Responses

A-FFW W/BELT

Helmet was much more user friendly with the foam liner. 1 

Table D-4. Run matrix.

MOUT Operations Day 3 

Iteration 1 2 3 Excursion 

Fire 

Team 

Time 

of 

Day 

Obj Config Time Obj Config Time Obj Config Time Obj Config Time 

FTB 0850 Loft Belt 1:07:2

4 

 

FTA 0904 Room Base 

FTB 0925 Room Up 

Arm 

 

FTA 0940 Loft Base 1:07:78 

FTB 0950 Loft Up 

Arm 

1:00:06 

FTB 1015 Room Belt 

FTB Room Self 

FTA 1330 Room Belt 

FTB 1345 Room Base 

FTA 1355 Loft Belt 1:14:21 

FTB 1415 Loft Base 1:08:93 

FTA 1435 Room Up 

Arm 

 

FTA 1457 Loft Up 

Arm 

1:24:72 

FTA Room Self 

 
134 

Table D-5. Times for entering hole in wall and loft times.

Day 3

 Fire 

Team 

Mission Configuration Door Time to 

Enter 

Seconds 

Loft Time 

In 

Loft Time 

out 

1 A Room FFW w/belt A 6.03 

2 B Room Base B 7.21 

3 A Loft Up-Armor C 6.75 1:24:72 1:36:50 

4 B Loft FFW w/belt A 5.06 1:07:24 1:35:50 

5 A Room Base B 6.50 

6 B Room Up-Armor C 7.50 

7 A Loft FFW w/belt A 5.89 1:14:21 1:52:69 

8 B Loft Up-Armor B 8.01 1:00:06 1:42:56 

9 A Room Up-Armor C 8.28 

10 B Room FFW w/belt A 5.24 

11 A Loft Base B 6.50 1:07:78 1:42:56 

12 B Loft Base C 7.52 1:08:93 1:15:84 

X B Xtra Run 

Room 

Whatever C 6.31 

X A Xtra Run 

Room 

Whatever B 6.50 
135 

Table D-6. What the Soldiers wore on the excursion. 

M203 B No. 7 

Did not wear neck protection or leg 

panels 

Why: 

Neck protection is hot and covers mouth 

when in a crouching position. 

Hampers breathing and interferes with 

air flow (hot). 

Leg panels slow my movement. 

Would only wear if there was no place 

else to store equipment. 

How Configured: 

Move 40-mm rounds to the sides and 

front of vest. Move magazines to middle 

front of vest. 

Move PDA panel to chest protector. 

M203 A No. 3 

Did not wear neck protection and leg 

panels. 

Why: 

Neck protection restricts my head 

movement too much. 

Leg panels are neat to carry ammunition, 

but they restrict my movement too much, 

especially while running. 

How Configured: 

Move 40-mm rounds to side and front of 

vest and some on belt. Put three 

magazines in front on vest. 

SAW B No. 8 

No Up-Armor at all 

Why: 

Interfered with head movement and too 

hot 

How Configured: 

Chassis with belt and suspenders 

SAW ammo pouches on belt 

First Aid 

Move electronics to back 

Smoke and frags on front of vest 

Open all zippers for ventilation 

SAW A No. 4 

No neck protection 

Why: 

Too hot, restricts movement 

How configured: 

Chassis 

Shoulder Pad 

Leg Panels – drum pouches on each 

First aid kit on left leg panel 

Move electronics from under arm to back 

Would add more drums to belt for more 

ammunition 

Smoke on vest 

Rifleman No. 9 

No Up-Armor 

Why: Too hot, restricts movement 

How Configured: 

Remove left leg panel 

Remove Ballistic belt 

Move CLS bag to upper rear 

Keep right leg panel 

Rifleman No. 5 

No Neck protection 

Why: Too hot 

How Configured: 

Liked everything except the neck collar 

Did not move any pouches 

Wanted suspenders for the ballistic belt 

BTL No. 6 

Did not like the location of the battery; it 

irritated his bicep and his movement. He 

would move it to the back of the chassis 

or reshape the batteries so they would 

not be as bulky 

Would wear all up armor in MOUT 

except the Neck Armor 

Would never wear neck armor, restricts 

head movement, retains heat, breath 

comes back into face and fogs goggles. 

For one room clearing known situation 

would wear chassis only, trade speed, 

flexibility and coolness for protection. 

ATL No. 2 

In urban environment would use chassis 

only because belt so uncomfortable and he 

never used his leg panels to carry 

equipment or ammunition 

Leader’s radio (left side) interferes with 

movement 

Wanted more ammunition 

Move radio to right front of chassis 

Add more ammunition on front of chassis 

Move IFAK to right rear of chassis 
136 

Table D-7. Soldier comments by iteration. 

Test Directorate Recorded Soldier Comments 

Task ID 

No. 

Configuration Comment 

1A – Room 

FTA 

4, 5 FFW 

w/belt 

Bottom of shin guard rubbing 

 2 Shoulders starting to hurt 

2B – Room 

FTB 

All Base IBA pushes on heart monitor 

3C – Loft 

FTA 

3, 4 FFW Up 

Armor 

Had hard time looking up due to neck armor 

Shoulder pad got caught in mouse hole 

 3 Felt claustrophobic wearing up armor 

4A – Loft 

FTB 

6, 8 FFW 

w/belt 

Leg straps on leg panel came undone 

 6 Too bulky, had to take chassis off to get through hole to come out 

5B – Room 

FTA 

3,4 Base IBA presses hard on the heart monitor and hurts 

6C – Room 

FTB 

6, 8 FFW Up 

Armor 

Neck armor restricts looking up while wearing the leader variant helmet. 

Holds too much heat in 

 6 Equipment caught on entrance door # C 

7A – Loft 

FTA 

3 FFW 

w/belt 

Had difficulty getting through mouse hole with leg panels (ammo and first 

aid pouch on leg panel) 

 4 Knee pads still causing problems with rubbing 

 5 CLS bag on leg panel got caught on mouse hole 

 2 Leg pads got in way, he wasn’t carrying anything on them; so he would not 

wear them in this type of operation 

8B – Loft 

FTB 

6, 8, 

9 

FFW Up 

Armor 

Looking up with helmet is lifting neck armor, had to push it back down into 

place, but could do it with the helmet as the armor is flexible 

9C – Room 

FTA 

3, 4, 

5 

FFW Up 

Armor 

Neck armor uncomfortable and restrictive 

 Several mentioned that the shoulder pad and belly pad were not noticeable 

10A – Room 

FTB 

6 FFW 

w/belt 

Armor belt would not stay up in place caused problems (he had no 

suspenders) 

11B – Loft 

FTA 

All Base All had problems with the heart monitor being pressed into their chest by IBA 

12C – Loft 

FTB 

All Base No comments 

General Comments 

Morning, 

FTB (No.6-

9) was FFW 

 No. 6 had to drop his chassis from the loft to the ground to egress back out of 

the mouse hole 

No. 6 did not like the location of the battery; it irritated his bicep and his 

movement. He would move it to the back of the chassis or reshape the 

batteries so they would not be as bulky 

No. 6 Would wear all up armor in MOUT except the Neck Armor 

Would never wear neck armor, restricts head movement, retains heat, breath 

comes back into face and fogs goggles. 

For one room clearing known situation would wear chassis only, trade speed, 

flexibility and coolness for protection. 

Afternoon, 

FTA) No. 2-

5) was FFW 

 No. 2 ballistic belt was uncomfortable 

In urban environment would use Chassis only because belt so uncomfortable 

and he never used his leg panels to carry equipment or ammo 

Leader’s radio (left side) interferes with movement 

Wanted more ammo 

Move radio to right front of chassis 

Add more ammo on front of chassis 

Move IFAK to right rear of chassis 
137 

Table D-8. FFW Soldier video taped comments. 

MOUT DAY 3

• Soldier had to remove the chassis in order to fit through the loft when exiting 

• Soldiers did not like the neck protectors because they restricted neck movement and did not 

allow a flow of air around the face. 

• Soldier’s equipment mounted on the leg panels got caught on entry and exit of the loft 

• The knee pads on the B-team rifleman made abrasions on his shin 

• Soldiers complained of trousers being too hot 

• Leg panels restricted mobility. When given the option, Soldiers removed leg panels and 

mounted equipment on chassis. 

• All Soldiers wore suspenders for waist belt and clawed it helped keep the belt in place. 

• The medical monitor straps chafed the Soldiers’ necks and sides. 
138 

Table D-9. Summary of Soldiers’ comments about specific gear: room/loft clearing. 

Questionnaires include: 

• Room Clearing Excursion 

• Loft Clearing 

• Room Clearing 

I got rid of the leg panels and positioned everything on the chassis; I move more 

freely and a lot faster and smoother 

I would get rid of the leg panels 

Leg straps came undone somewhere along the mission 

Leg panels snagged through the loft 

Leg panels were restrictive when running (6) 

Lose the pouch on leg armor (2) 

I would not wear the leg inserts 

Leg panels 

Leg panels restrict speed, but slow is smooth and smooth is fast 

We get caught going through the mousehole because of our size 

I would not wear the up-armor kit in mount 

It breathes 

I liked the access to equipment (2) 

Up-armor kit 

Up-armor kit might work well for turret gunners but not for dismounted Infantry 

CLS Bag When I went through the mouse hole the CLS bag caught (2) 

Shoulder straps rub the collar bone (2) 

I got rid of the leg panels and positioned all rounds on front of chassis 

Going through narrow doorways, the side of the chassis was a little bulky (loft 

clearing) 

Chassis 

In the mousehole of the loft I had problems getting through; the battery kept 

getting stuck on way out and on way in sides of chassis got stuck (2) 

Shoulder straps starting to be irritating to shoulders 

I like having rounds readily available on the chassis (2) 

The chassis makes it hard to breathe because it is tight around the upper body (2) 

The latch that closes the chassis needs to be re-positioned; try to work something 

in the middle or a zipper (4) 

Needed help with the latch to doff the chassis 

The ventilation in the chassis is the one really good thing about it 

Chassis 

For guys with bigger upper bodies I would widen out the shoulder part of it 

Electronics The wires get caught 

Move all electronics to the back except the little display screen (4) 

IFAK I placed it on the back of the chassis, because I need rounds before I need first aid 

FFW general The gear got snagged up in the window 

 FFW with belt is too bulky 

 

 Equipment (FFW with belt) just snagged on mousehole to loft (2) 

 Equipment (FFW with belt) snagging in little cubby doorways 

 FFW with belt went fairly smooth in loft clearing 

 Difficult to climb the ladder with the FFW with belt gear 

 The layout of the FFW is great 

 The drop magazine pouch reduces mag change time (FFW with belt) 

 Can’t run, can’t hide 

 I would put the interior pads in the IBA to create ventilation, and ditch the rest 
139 

Neck guard was stopping the head movement 

Neck protection got in the way (6) 

Neck guard snagged going through the mousehole; neck guard gives limited range 

of head movement 

Don’t like the neck guard (2) 

Dog collar does not allow me to look up. It blocks ventilation and traps heat in 

more 

My situational awareness was decreased due to the addition of the neck collar; it 

gave me an enclosed feeling (2) 

The neck guard takes away from the mobility of the head, but it would be good for 

a 50 cal. gunner 

Neck protection would be good for convoy ops 

Difficult to don (2) 

Neck protection 

Dog collar restricts head movement with leader helmet 

 

Chafing is due to Hidalgo heart monitor (3) 

Medical computer needs to be moved to the rear (5) 

LSDS 

My butt pack snagged when I climbed the stairs to get through the mousehole 

I could get into the loft a lot faster and easier, without any snags, with the Baseline 

gear 

Going into the loft with the Baseline gear on was no problem, nothing got snagged 

like the FFW gear 

The IBA is pretty constraining to mobility 

Baseline general 

The IBA tends to shift from shoulder to shoulder 

 

Batteries Batteries need to be re-positioned (5) 

Moving the battery to the back right of vest was great; I wouldn’t change it 

Ballistic belt I would not wear the waist belt 

Hooking the latch is difficult; get rid of it 

Don’t like shoulder pad (2) 

I like the shoulder pad; I didn’t feel it and it’s more protection 

Shoulder pad 

The shoulder pad was nice (2) 

Belly panel I like the gut guard; I didn’t feel it and it’s more protection (2) 

I didn’t like the gut plate 

 

Helmet, Soldier When you pull down the goggles it is on the top of the ears 

variation Try and change the color from black 

 

Works well; helmet stays in place even when hitting your head 

Helmet was much more user friendly with the foam liner 

I can’t completely customize it to my head 

If the ear plugs aren’t in the right place it puts a little pressure on the head 

The helmet got heated fairly well in the top 

Helmet, unspecified 

variation 

I liked the helmet a lot more than the ACH 

 

Pants are ridiculously hot. I would rather fight naked. Maybe the pants are good 

for fall and winter. The knee pads are bothering me today; some chafing in the 

calves 

Bottom of shin guard rubbed my shin; it’s starting to become sensitive. 

Fix the pants; they are way too hot. 

Trousers 

I would ditch the pants, which get more and more uncomfortable by the day 
140 

Table D-10. Likert ratings, loft clearing, FFW with belt versus up-armor kit. 

Strong preference for up-armor kit: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.14 6.25 -1.11 

Moderate preference for up-armor kit: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Move through mouse holes 2.88 3.63 -0.75 

Ease of leg movement 4.88 5.50 -0.63 

Equipment snagging 3.75 4.25 -0.50 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.71 6.00 -0.29 

Overall comfort 4.75 5.00 -0.25 

No clear preference: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Ease of torso movement 5.88 6.00 -0.13 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position 5.00 5.13 -0.13 

Pressure points 5.75 5.88 -0.13 

Equipment hindering movement 3.88 4.00 -0.13 

Equipment pinching 5.25 5.38 -0.13 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 4.29 4.38 -0.09 

Move through doorways 5.71 5.75 -0.04 

Ease of arm movement 5.63 5.63 0.00 

Torso chafing in front 5.75 5.75 0.00 

Arm/shoulder chafing 4.88 4.88 0.00 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.38 5.38 0.00 

Ability to engage enemy 5.29 5.17 0.12 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.25 6.13 0.13 

Hot spots 6.25 6.13 0.13 

Load adjustment 6.25 6.13 0.13 

Moderate preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.75 0.25 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 5.75 0.25 

Weight shifting 6.25 6.00 0.25 

Access to stowed items 6.25 6.00 0.25 

Armor preventing flexing 6.13 5.75 0.38 

Bruising on your body 5.71 5.25 0.46 

Ability to run 5.13 4.63 0.50 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.17 5.67 0.50 

Move through windows 4.00 3.50 0.50 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.50 4.75 0.75 

Neck/head chafing 5.63 4.75 0.88 
141 

Strong preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Ability to breathe 6.13 5.00 1.13 

Ease of head movement 6.13 4.13 2.00 

BASELINE VERSUS FFW WITH BELT 

Strong preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Ability to breathe 4.00 6.13 -2.13 

Moderate preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Armor preventing flexing 5.14 6.13 -0.98 

Weight shifting 5.57 6.25 -0.68 

Torso chafing in front 5.29 5.75 -0.46 

Neck/head chafing 5.29 5.63 -0.34 

Use of hand and arm signals 5.86 6.17 -0.31 

Ease of torso movement 5.63 5.88 -0.25 

Load adjustment 6.00 6.25 -0.25 

No clear preference: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Conducting IMT 5.83 6.00 -0.17 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.13 6.25 -0.13 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 6.00 0.00 

Bruising on your body 5.71 5.71 0.00 

Ease of head movement 6.13 6.13 0.00 

Hot spots 6.29 6.25 0.04 

Access to stowed items 6.33 6.25 0.08 

Move through doorways 5.88 5.71 0.16 

Moderate preference for Baseline: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Overall comfort 5.00 4.75 0.25 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.17 5.71 0.45 

Ease of arm movement 6.13 5.63 0.50 

Pressure points 6.29 5.75 0.54 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.57 4.88 0.70 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.88 5.14 0.73 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position 5.75 5.00 0.75 

Equipment pinching 6.00 5.25 0.75 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.33 5.50 0.83 

Ability to run 6.00 5.13 0.88 

Leg/thigh chafing 6.29 5.38 0.91 

Equipment hindering movement 4.86 3.88 0.98 
142 

Strong preference for Baseline: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Ability to engage enemy 6.29 5.29 1.00 

Ease of leg movement 6.13 4.88 1.25 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 5.71 4.29 1.43 

Equipment snagging 5.29 3.75 1.54 

Move through mouseholes 4.50 2.88 1.63 

Move through windows 5.75 4.00 1.75 

Table D-11. Room clearing, Likert ratings, baseline versus FFW with belt. 

Strong preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Ability to breathe 4.33 5.75 -1.42 

Torso chafing in front 4.50 5.88 -1.38 

Armor preventing flexing 4.86 6.00 -1.14 

Moderate preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Weight shifting 5.29 6.13 -0.84 

Equipment snagging 5.71 6.50 -0.79 

Torso chafing in back 5.29 6.00 -0.71 

Overall comfort 4.57 5.25 -0.68 

Neck/head chafing 5.71 6.38 -0.66 

Bruising on your body 5.43 5.88 -0.45 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.00 6.33 -0.33 

No clear preference: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Pressure points 6.00 6.25 -0.25 

Ease of torso movement 5.50 5.75 -0.25 

Equipment pinching 5.14 5.38 -0.23 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.71 5.88 -0.16 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position 5.63 5.71 -0.09 

Load adjustment 5.71 5.75 -0.04 

Access to stowed items 5.86 5.88 -0.02 

Move through doorways 5.75 5.75 0.00 

Ease of head movement 5.75 5.75 0.00 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.13 6.00 0.13 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.83 5.63 0.21 

Hot spots 5.86 5.63 0.23 

Conducting IMT 6.25 6.00 0.25 
143 

Moderate preference for Baseline: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 6.00 5.63 0.38 

Ability to engage enemy 6.25 5.88 0.38 

Ease of arm movement 6.00 5.50 0.50 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 6.33 5.80 0.53 

Equipment hindering movement 6.29 5.63 0.66 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.67 6.00 0.67 

Ease of leg movement 5.88 5.13 0.75 

Ease of assuming prone position 6.25 5.33 0.92 

Move through mouse holes 5.43 4.50 0.93 

Strong preference for Baseline: 

Question Base Belt Diff 

Ability to run 6.13 4.75 1.38 

Move through windows 6.00 4.00 2.00 

Table D-12. Room clearing, Likert ratings, FFW with belt versus FFW up-armor kit. 

There is a pretty clear trend for the FFW with Belt configuration to be preferred to the FFW uparmor kit. 

Moderate preference for up-armor kit: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Equipment pinching 5.38 5.63 -0.25 

Load adjustment 5.75 6.00 -0.25 

No clear preference: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Access to stowed items 5.88 6.00 -0.13 

Weight shifting 6.13 6.25 -0.13 

Leg/thigh chafing 5.63 5.63 0.00 

Pressure points 6.25 6.25 0.00 

Ability to conduct reflexive shooting 5.63 5.50 0.13 

Assume the standing/ready or “stacked position” 6.00 5.88 0.13 

Ease of leg movement 5.13 5.00 0.13 

Hot spots 5.63 5.50 0.13 

Torso chafing in front 5.88 5.75 0.13 

Moderate preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Ability to engage enemy 5.88 5.50 0.38 

Bruising on your body 5.88 5.50 0.38 

Ease of arm movement 5.50 5.13 0.38 
144 

Ease of torso movement 5.75 5.38 0.38 

Move through doorways 5.75 5.38 0.38 

Torso chafing in back 6.00 5.63 0.38 

Ability to crouch (bend and maintain reduced exposure position 5.71 5.25 0.46 

Ability to run 4.75 4.29 0.46 

Move through mouse holes 4.50 4.00 0.50 

Armor preventing flexing 6.00 5.38 0.63 

Conducting IMT 6.00 5.25 0.75 

Move through windows 4.00 3.25 0.75 

Ease of assuming kneeling position 5.80 5.00 0.80 

Ability to breathe 5.75 4.88 0.88 

Strong preference for FFW with Belt: 

Question Belt Up Armor Diff 

Arm/shoulder chafing 5.88 4.88 1.00 

Neck/head chafing 6.38 5.38 1.00 

Overall comfort 5.25 4.13 1.13 

Use of hand and arm signals 6.33 5.17 1.17 

Ease of assuming prone position 5.33 4.00 1.33 

Ability to ascend and descend stairs 6.00 4.50 1.50 

Equipment snagging 6.50 5.00 1.50 

Equipment hindering movement 5.63 3.88 1.75 

Ease of head movement 5.75 3.13 2.63 
145 

Appendix E. Individual Movement Technique Course and CB 

Table E-1. Woodland IMT course with CB gear.

Results of Soldier Questionnaires 

EQUIPMENT/SAMPLE SIZE: 

A FFW, CB AND MASK MEDIUM-1; LARGE-2 

B FFW, CB, MASK AND BELT MOUNT MEDIUM-2; LARGE-1 

C FFW, CB, MASK AND LEG MOUNT MEDIUM-1; LARGE-1 

1. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to complete the tasks on the obstacles shown 

with the equipment you wore. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely hard Very hard Hard Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely easy 

MEAN RESPONSE 

TASKS MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

PIPE CRAWL 

Running/dashing 4.00 6.00 5.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Negotiating pipe crawl 6.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Leg movement 3.00 4.50 5.00 6.50 7.00 4.00 

Arm movement 3.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Torso movement 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Head movement 1.00 3.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 4.00 

Crawling 6.00 4.50 3.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

ZIG-ZIG, TWO-FOOT JUMP, MOUND 

Negotiating the zigzag 6.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Negotiating the 2-ft Jump 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Negotiating the hill 5.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Head movement 1.00 3.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Running 6.00 6.00 5.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 5.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 3.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 1.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 4.00 

FOXHOLE AND FIRING POSITION 

Getting into the foxhole 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Assuming good foxhole firing position 4.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition 

pouches while in foxhole firing position 

6.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 3.00 4.00 

Replacing empty magazines in 

ammunition pouches while in foxhole 

firing position 

1.00 4.50 7.00 6.50 3.00 2.00 

Arm movement 5.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Acquiring targets from foxhole firing 

position 

4.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 4.00 5.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 6.00 4.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 3.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 6.00 4.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 3.00 

Getting out of foxhole 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 
146 

COMBAT ROLL, PRONE FIRING POSITION 

Executing combat rolls left and right 6.00 6.00 3.00 6.50 7.00 2.00 

Assuming a good prone firing position 5.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Acquiring targets 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Retrieving magazines from ammunition pouches 

while in the prone firing position 

6.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 

Replacing empty magazines back into ammunition 

pouches while in the prone firing position 

1.00 3.00 6.00 3.50 3.00 1.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 5.00 4.00 6.00 6.50 7.00 2.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 1.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 3.00 

HIGH CRAWL 

Negotiating the high crawl obstacle 5.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 

Leg Movement 5.00 4.50 7.00 6.00 7.00 3.00 

Arm Movement 5.00 5.50 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 

Torso Movement 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 

Head Movement 3.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 1.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 6.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 7.00 3.00 

KNEELING FIRING POSITION 

Assuming a good kneeling firing position 6.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Leg movement 5.00 4.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Arm movement 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Torso movement 5.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Acquiring targets from the kneeling firing position 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Retrieve magazines from ammunition pouches 

from the kneeling position 

6.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 

Replace empty magazines back into the 

ammunition pouches in the kneeling position 

1.00 4.50 7.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 7.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 4.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 1.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

HIGH WALL AND PRONE FIRING POSITION 

Negotiating the high wall obstacle 5.00 5.50 4.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Assuming the prone firing position 3.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Leg movement 4.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 4.00 

Arm movement 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Torso movement 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Acquiring targets from the prone firing position 4.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 

Retrieve magazines from ammo pouches from the 

prone position 

6.00 5.50 7.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 

Replace empty magazines back into the 

ammunition pouches in the prone position 

1.00 3.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 

Seeing/scanning left and right 6.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 4.00 

Seeing/scanning up and down 1.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 
147 

2. Using the scale below, please rate the problem areas encountered on this exercise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

A lot of 

problems 

 A few 

problems 

 No problems 

encountered

MEAN RESPONSE 

PROBLEM AREAS MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

Pressure Points 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Hot Spots 1.00 4.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Bruising on your body 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Torso chafing in front 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Torso chafing in back 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Arm/Shoulder chafing 6.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Leg/Thigh chafing 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Neck/Head chafing 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Equipment catching 7.00 4.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Equipment hindering movement 3.00 5.50 4.00 6.50 7.00 2.00 

Weight shifting 7.00 5.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Equipment pinching 6.00 5.50 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Armor preventing flexing 5.00 6.00 7.00 6.50 7.00 5.00 

Hoses restricting movement (too short) NA 5.00 7.00 NA 7.00 5.00 

Hoses snagging (too long) NA 7.00 7.00 NA 7.00 5.00 

Control knobs on PAVS and PAPR with gloved 

hands 

NA 4.50 5.00 NA 7.00 5.00 

Connecting/disconnecting PAVS hose to/from 

manifold assembly 

NA 4.50 5.00 NA 7.00 5.00 

Exchange battery in PAVS NA 7.00 7.00 NA 7.00 5.00 

Overall comfort 4.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 

3. During this exercise, did any of the equipment you wore hinder your ability to complete the 

mission? 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

No 1 2 0 1 1 0 

Yes 0 0 1 1 0 1 

Comments No. of Responses

A-LARGE

Heat buildup. 1 
148 

Comments No. of Responses

C-MEDIUM

The blower on the outside of my leg rolled to the inside while I was high crawling and slowed me 

down. 

1 

C-LARGE

The leg mounts shifted during the high crawl. 1 

4. During this exercise, did any of the equipment you wore present an unsafe condition? 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

No 1 2 1 1 1 1 

Yes 0 0 0 1 0 0 

A-LARGE

Heat buildup. 1 

5. Would you move or adjust any of your equipment to a different location to make your job 

easier or more comfortable? 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

No 1 2 0 1 1 0 

Yes 0 0 1 1 0 1 

A-LARGE

Placement of the magazine or adding a magazine drop pouch. 1 

B-LARGE

The magazines are hard to see with the gear on. I would add a drop pouch for expended 

magazines. 

1 

C-MEDIUM

The blowers can’t go on your legs. 1 

C-LARGE

Get the blowers off the legs; it makes movement too slow and sluggish. 1 

6. Did you encounter any difficulty donning the CB garment with the FFW gear? 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

No 1 2 1 2 1 1 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7. Did you encounter any difficulty doffing the CB garment with the FFW gear? 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

No 1 2 1 2 1 ` 

Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 
149 

8. Using the scale below, please rate the airflow to the different areas of your body while 

wearing the CB Garment and positive air ventilation systems. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

No Airflow Very bad 

airflow 

Bad 

airflow 

Neither good nor 

bad airflow 

Good 

airflow 

Very good 

airflow 

Ideal Airflow 

MEAN RESPONSE 

AIRFLOW MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

Face 4.00 5.50 7.00 4.50 4.00 6.00 

Right arm 2.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 

Left arm 2.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 

Torso/trunk front 3.00 4.50 7.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 

Torso/trunk back 3.00 4.50 7.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 

Right leg 2.00 4.50 5.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 

Left leg 2.00 4.50 5.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 

9. How would you rate the overall comfort of this CB system? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely bad Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good Extremely good 

MEAN RESPONSE 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

4.00 4.50 7.00 5.50 7.00 NR 

10. Now that you have worn both the PAVS and PAPR air ventilation systems, please answer the 

following questions using the scale below. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Totally 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Somewhat 

disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

Somewhat 

agree 

Strongly 

agree 

Totally 

agree 

MEAN RESPONSE 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

The performance of the PAVS is worth carrying 

the extra weight 

NA 4.50 7.00 NA 5.00 6.00 

The best place to carry the PAVS is on the belt NA 4.00 7.00 NA 5.00 6.00 

The best place to carry the PAVS is on the hip NA 4.00 2.00 NA 6.00 NR 

I would accept less performance of the PAVS in 

order to reduce the size and weight 

NA 2.50 4.00 NA 3.00 NR 

The performance of the PAPR is worth carrying 

the extra weight 

NA 4.50 7.00 NA 5.00 6.00 

The best place to carry the PAPR is on the belt NA 4.00 7.00 NA 6.00 6.00 

The best place to carry the PAPR is on the hip NA 4.00 2.00 NA 3.00 NR 

I would accept less performance of the PAPR in 

order to reduce the size and weight 

NA 2.50 4.00 NA 1.00 NR 
150 

11. Please rate the concept of an air ventilation system for a CB over-garment and mask. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely bad Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good Extremely good 

MEAN RESPONSE 

MEDIUM LARGE 

A B C A B C 

7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 

IMT Course

Iteration Size Roster 

1 2 3 

9 A B 

Medium 

PAV 

Hip Inlet 4 FFW A 

5 B A 

Large 

PAV 

Belly Inlet 8 A FFW 

 FFW – Chassis w/Belt 

 A – CB Equipment w/PAPR Belt Mount 

 B – CB Equipment w/PAPR Leg Mount 

Table E-2. Woodland IMT questionnaire, Soldiers’ video comments.

FFW + CB + Mask Heat buildup (2) 

Change the placement of the magazine or add a magazine drop pouch 

FFW + CB + Mask + Belt 

Mount 

The magazines are hard to see with the gear on. I would add a drop pouch for 

expended magazines. 

The blower on the outside of my leg rolled to the inside while I was high 

crawling and slowed me down. 

The leg mounts shifted during the high crawl 

The blowers can’t go on your legs 

FFW + CB + Mask + Leg 

Mount 

Get the blowers off the legs; it makes movement too slow and sluggish. 
151 

Table E-3. IMT observations.

Observations from Future Force Warrior Design Evaluation (EDE) #4, Friday 13 May 

Sent 25 May 2005 by Stewardson, Cheryl RDECOM (PKI) [Cheryl.Stewardson@us.army.mil] 

1. PAVS hose became disconnected while some of the test subjects were on the IMT course. Disconnects occurred 

at both the blower and manifold locations. Test subjects suggested including a quick connect/disconnect to allow 

for ease of donning/doffing the PAVS. 

2. Switch on the PAVS was difficult for the test subjects to activate. This may have been due to the mounting 

location of the PAVS on the body, limited field of view caused by mask, carrier design (switch accessed by unsnapping cover), size of switch, or all/some of the above. 

3. OEM filters were not used on the PAPR during the evaluation because they were unavailable; PAVS (C2 

canisters) were used instead. The OEM filters are approximately 3⁄4 inch deeper (i.e., larger) and heavier than the C2 

canisters. It is unclear if this resulted in a positive or negative impact on the air flow rate and/or physical integration 

of the PAPR with the FFW ensemble. 

4. BB2800 batteries were used to power the PAVS. In general, these batteries performed well. However, high 

failure rates noted prior to the evaluation and continuing difficulties attaining a 100% charge may warrant 

examining alternative power sources. It should be noted that these batteries were only used for approximately 20 

minutes at any one time during the evaluation, and then were placed into the battery charger. 
152 

Table E-4. SME comments, times, and medical notes.

IMT Course - Day 5 

1st Iteration 

Iteration ID 

No. Config Temp 

Heart 

Rate 

Respiration Time to 

Compete 

FP 

No.1 

FP 

No.2 

FP 

No.3 

FP 

No.4 Notes 

Pre 

1st 5 A na 60 20 07:43.0 01:03.9 00:51.1 01:09.0 01:33.3 

Struggled replacing 

magazines into 

pouches 

 9 B na 84 20 04:43.0 00:34.9 00:27.5 00:30.8 01:04.5 

Had difficulty 

replacing magazines 

and caused extra 

time at firing points 

 

Post 

1st 5 A 95.4 116 36 

 9 B na 152 56 

Pre 

1st 4 FFW 84 16 06:48.0 00:59.1 00:42.5 01:07.9 00:33.9 

Chassis came open 

and he could not reconnect, had to be 

reconnected by test 

personnel. 

Reconnected at 

Foxhole FP. 

 8 A 76 16 05:53.0 00:47.2 00:44.4 00:44.2 00:59.3 

PAVS hose came 

off had to be 

reconnected after 

high crawl. 

Post 

1st 4 FFW 98.3 136 32 

 8 A 98.1 128 48 

2nd Iteration 

Pre 

2nd 5 B 98.1 94 16 06:13.0 00:51.6 00:53.5 01:01.8 00:51.7 

 9 A 87.8 88 20 05:09.0 00:45.8 00:43.1 00:29.9 00:39.7 

Blank adapter was 

loose, caused 

misfire at FP#1. 

Did not return used 

magazines to ammo 

pouches at FP #2 

and 4 

Post 

2nd 5 B 99.2 144 44 

 9 A 99.1 152 56 

Pre 

2nd 4 A 97.3 88 24 05:19.0 00:37.6 00:52.0 00:34.3 00:53.0 

PAPR hose came 

off in foxhole, 

Soldier tried to fix it 

himself. Both 

PAPR and PAVS 

came off on high 

crawl, stopped 

Soldier reconnected. 

8 FFW 98.2 80 24 05:28.0 00:33.2 00:53.0 00:40.6 00:48.6 

Post 4 99.6 200 36 

8 98.3 184 48 
153 

Appendix F. Soldier and Equipment Weights 

Table F-1. Day 2, AM weights, movement to contact.

Soldier Weights 

10 May 05 - Day 2 - Morning 

I

D Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

1 SL RFI (Baseline) and FFW Mix All Soldiers wearing a version of the LSDS. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Uniform with RFI 

(Baseline) Vest and Wpn 198 

No Ballistic Belt. SL not weighed with ICOM 

radio. 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 173 

 

2 

ATL FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 288 No Ballistic Belt 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 240 FFW Leader Variant Helmet 

 BDU no boots 230 

3 G FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 282.5 

No Ballistic Belt. Not weighed with personal 

GPS. 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 233 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 BDU no boots 220 

4 AR FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 221 With Ballistic Belt 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 164.25 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 BDU no boots 156 

5 R FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 219 

# 5 had traditional belt with equip pouches 

strapped on legs. 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 164.25 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 BDU no boots 160 

6 

BTL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 249 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 231 

 BDU no boots 214.5 
154 

Soldier Weights 

10 May 05 - Day 2 - Morning 

7 G RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 234 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 194.25 

 BDU no boots 189 

8 AR RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load 235 

 Fighting Load 218.5 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 181 

 BDU no boots 171 

9 R RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 238 

 

Uniform Only with Helmet (No 

Wpn) 214.5 

 BDU no boots 201 

1

0 

Med

ic FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Undergarmet Shirt, Medics 

Bag, Soft Cap, and No Wpn 236 No Ballistic Belt 

 

Uniform Only (No Medics Bag, 

No Helmet, No Wpn) 206.5 

 BDU no boots 
155 

Table F-2. Day 2, PM weights, movement to contact.

Soldier Weights 

10 May 05 - Day 2 - Afternoon 

ID Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

1 SL All RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 FFW Uniform with RFI (Baseline) Vest and Wpn 197.75 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 171.5 

 

2 A-TL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack. Wearing Sleep Watch 

 Fighting Load 279 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 239.5 

 

3 G RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 268 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 230 

 

4 AR RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack. Wearing Sleep Watch 

 Fighting Load 211 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 168.5 

 

5 R RFI (Baseline) All Soldiers wearing a version of LSDS. 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack. Wearing Sleep Watch 

 Fighting Load 199.5 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 167 

 

6 B-TL FFW 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 272 With Ballistic Belt 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 224 

7 G 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 262.5 With Ballistic Belt. With Grenades 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 195.25 

8 AR Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 244 With Ballistic Belt. Wearing Sleep Watch 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 183 

 

9 R FFW 

 Approach Load N/A No Assault Pack 

 Fighting Load 259.25 With Ballistic Belt. Wearing Sleep Watch. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 209.5 

 

 FFW 

10 Medic Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Under garmet Shirt, Medics Bag, Soft Cap, and 

No Wpn 236 No Ballistic Belt 

 Uniform Only (No Medics Bag, No Helmet, No Wpn) 206.5 
156 

Table F-3. Day 3, AM weights, MOUT.

Soldier Weights 

11 May 05 - Day 3 - Morning 

ID Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

6 B-TL FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 270.25 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 223 FFW Leader Variant Helmet 

 

2 A-TL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 277 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 240 

 

7 G FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 252 

12 40mm HE Grenades on Body. Six 5.56 Mags 

on Body. 1 in Weapon 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 194.25 FFW Leader Variant Helmet 

 

3 G RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 272 

12 40mm HE Grenades on Body. Six 5.56 Mags 

on Body. 1 in Weapon 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 231 

End 

8 AR FFW All Soldiers Wearing Some LSDS Version. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 233 200 Rounds Carried. 100 Rounds in Weapon. 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 183 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 

4 AR RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 208 200 Rounds Carried. 100 Rounds in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 164 

9 R FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 252 

With Combat Lifesavers Bag. Six 5.56 Mags on 

Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 207 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 

5 R RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Uniform with RFI (Baseline) Vest 

and Wpn 202 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 166.75 

 

1 SL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 201.75 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 170.25 
157 

Table F-4. Day 3, AM weights, MOUT, up armor.

Soldier Weights 

11 May 05 - Day 3 - Morning (FFW Up-Armor) 

ID Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

 

6 B-TL FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 274.5 

 

7 G FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 256.25 

 

8 AR FFW (With Up-Armor) All Soldiers Wearing Some LSDS Version. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 236.25 

 

9 R FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 255.75 

End 
158 

Table F-5. Day 3, PM weights, MOUT.

Soldier Weights 

11 May 05 - Day 3 - Afternoon 

ID Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

2 A-TL FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 288.5 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 241.75 FFW Leader Variant Helmet 

 

6 B-TL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 256 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 221.75 

 

3 G FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 291 

12 40mm HE Grenades on Body. Six 5.56 

Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 234.25 FFW Leader Variant Helmet 

 

7 G RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 238 

12 40mm HE Grenades on Body. Six 5.56 

Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 193.75 

 

4 AR FFW 

All Soldiers Wearing Some LSDS 

Version. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 214 

200 Rounds Carried. 100 Rounds in 

Weapon. 

 Uniform with Helmet (No Wpn) 166 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 

8 AR RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 227 

200 Rounds Carried. 100 Rounds in 

Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 183 

5 R FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 211.75 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 

 Uniform Only with Helmet (No Wpn) 168 FFW Soldier Variant Helmet 

 

9 R RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Uniform with RFI (Baseline) 

Vest and Wpn 252 Six 5.56 Mags on Body. 1 in Weapon. 
159 

Table F-6. Day 3, PM weights, MOUT, up armor.

4 Soldier Weights 

11 May 05 - Day 3 - Afternoon (FFW Up-Armor) 

ID Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

2 

ATL FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 293.25 

 

3 G FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 294.5 

 

4 AR FFW (With Up-Armor) All Soldiers Wearing Some LSDS Version. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 218 200 Rounds Carried. 100 Rounds in Weapon. 

 

5 R FFW (With Up-Armor) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load with Up-Armor 215.5 

End 
160 

Table F-7. Day 4, weights, movement to contact.

Soldier Weights 

12 May 05 - Day 4 - 2nd Iteration of Movement to Contact 

I

D Pos Load Types Weight Notes 

2 

ATL FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 294.75 

 230 Delta 64.75 lb 

6 

BTL RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 261.5 

 214.5 Delta 47 lb 

3 G FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 293.75 

 220 Delta 73.75 lb 

7 G RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 245.75 

 189 Delta 56.75 lb 

4 AR FFW 

All Soldiers Wearing Some LSDS 

Version. 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 218.25 

200 Rounds Carried. 200 Rounds 

in SAW. 

 156 Delta 62.25 lb 

8 AR RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 229 

200 Rounds Carried. 200 Rounds 

in SAW. 

 171 Delta 58 lb 

5 R FFW 

 Approach Load N/A 

 Fighting Load 214.75 

 160 Delta 54.75 

9 R RFI (Baseline) 

 Approach Load N/A 

 

FFW Uniform with RFI (Baseline) 

Vest and Wpn 251.5 

 201 Delta 50.5 lb 
161 

Table F-8. Day 5, weights, CB IMT course.

FFW EDE No. 4 Soldier Weights 

12 May 05 - Day 4 - 2nd Iteration of Movement to Contact 

ID Uniform Load Types Weight Notes 

 1st Iteration 

9 A Med, Hip Inlet, Belt Mount 261 

5 B Lg, Belly Inlet, Leg Mount 252 

4 Base FFW with Base CB Suit 209 

8 A Lg, Belly Inlet, Leg Mount 224 

 

 2nd Iteration 

9 Base FFW with Base CB Suit 221 

5 B Lg, Belly Inlet, Leg Mount 222 

4 A Med, Belly Inlet, Leg Mount 218 

8 Base FFW with Base CB Suit 233 

Table F-9. Typical weight differences FFW versus RFI. 

ID Pos Load Types Weight ID Pos Load Types Weight 

2 A-TL 

FFW Fighting Load 294.75 

6 B-TL 

RFI (Baseline) Fighting 

Load 

261.5 

 Body Weight w/BDU 230 Body Weight w/BDU 214.5 

 Delta 64.75 Delta 47 

3 G FFW Fighting Load 293.75 7 G 

RFI (Baseline) Fighting 

Load 245.75 

 Body Weight w/BDU 220 Body Weight w/BDU 189 

 Delta 73.75 Delta 56.75 

4 AR FFW Fighting Load 218.25 8 AR 

RFI (Baseline) Fighting 

Load 229 

 Body Weight w/BDU 156 Body Weight w/BDU 171 

 Delta 62.25 Delta 58 

5 R FFW Fighting Load 214.75 9 R 

RFI (Baseline) Fighting 

Load 251.5 

 Body Weight w/BDU 160 Body Weight w/BDU 201 

 Delta 54.75 Delta 50.5 
162 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
163 

Appendix G. Miscellaneous 

Table G-1. Observations from IPT observers.

Observations from Future Force Warrior Design Evaluation (EDE) 4, Friday 13 May 

Sent 25 May 2005 by Stewardson, Cheryl RDECOM (PKI) [Cheryl.Stewardson@us.army.mil] 

1. PAVS hose became disconnected while some of the test subjects were on the IMT course. 

Disconnects occurred at both the blower and manifold locations. Test subjects suggested 

including a quick connect/disconnect to allow for ease of donning/doffing the PAVS. 

2. Switch on the PAVS was difficult for the test subjects to activate. This may have been due to 

the mounting location of the PAVS on the body, limited field of view caused by mask, carrier 

design (switch accessed by un-snapping cover), size of switch, or all/some of the above. 

3. OEM filters were not used on the PAPR during the evaluation because they were unavailable; 

PAVS (C2 canisters) were used instead. The OEM filters are approximately 3⁄4” deeper (i.e. 

larger) and heavier than the C2 canisters. It is unclear if this resulted in a positive or negative 

impact on the air flow rate and/or physical integration of the PAPR with the FFW ensemble. 

4. BB2800 batteries were used to power the PAVS. In general these batteries performed well. 

However, high failure rates noted prior to the evaluation and continuing difficulties attaining a 

100% charge may warrant examining alternative power sources. It should be noted that these 

batteries were only used for approximately 20 minutes at any one time during the evaluation, and 

then were placed into the battery charger. 
164 

Data Submitted by Adam Malhoit, BDST/MRMC for FFW 

The following are notes and tables containing data acquired from 9-12MAY05 @ Ft. Benning 

during the FFW evaluation. These data will be submitted by data type, then chronologically. 

I. LSDS Fitting 

A. Process: 

The LSDS fit was attained by following the tables, unless fit was 

achievable in a comfortable fashion, with fewer or no extension straps. 

LSDS 1-C 

LSDS Belt Fit Matrix

y = 1.3846x - 4.2564

R2

 = 0.9838

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Strap Lengh (w/ w/o extender) (in)

Measured Chest Size (in)

Belt Size 28

Belt Size 30

Belt Size 28 + 3" 

Extender

Belt Size 30 + 3" 

Extender

Belt Size 30 + 5" 

Extender

Hidalgo LSDS

* chest strap is of a smaller diameter 

M4 30.5 33.8 36.8 38.8 41.8 43.8

M3 31.0 34.5 37.5 39.5 42.5 44.5

M2 31.0 34.0 37.0 39.0 42.0 44.0

M1* 30.5 35.0 38.0 40.0 43.0 45.0

Max 

Chest 

Max 

Chest 

Max 

Chest 

Max 

chest 

min max

Strap # Chest Size range 3" extender 5" extender Both 3" & 5" Two 5"
165 

Actual Fit Results 

10, 11MAY2005; Kunzig Range & Eiler Hall

Soldier 

Number 

Chest Size 

(in.) 

LSDS 

Style 

Strap 

Label 

Strap Size

(in.) 

1st Extension 

Required 

2nd Extension 

Required 

9 37.50 HIDALGO M3 unknown 3" 

4 33.88 1-C #05 27.50 

8 34.00 HIDALGO M1 unknown 

5 34.75 1-C #01 28.00 3" 

2 41.00 1-C #04 30.00 5" 3" 

3 40.25 1-C #02 30.00 5" 

7 40.50 HIDALGO M4 unknown 5" 

6 42.25 HIDALGO M2 unknown 

12, 13 MAY2005; Kunzig Range & McKenna MOUT IMT Course

Pictures of two styles 

 LSDS 1-C Hidalgo strap 

Soldier 

Number 

Chest Size 

(in.) 

LSDS 

Style 

Strap 

Label 

Strap Size 

(in.) 

1st Extension 

Required 

2nd Extension 

Required 

9 37.50 1-C #06 30.00 

4 33.88 HIDALGO M4 unknown 

8 34.00 1-C #01 28.00 

5 34.75 HIDALGO M2 unknown 

2 41.00 HIDALGO M1 unknown 

3 40.25 HIDALGO M3 unknown 5" 

7 40.50 1-C #04 30.00 

6 42.25 1-C #03 30.00 5" 
166 

Medical Load Carriage Configurations 

10 May 05, Kunzig Range 

Soldier 

Number 

Uniform 

Configuration Kit Type Original MOLLE-Mounted location Timeframe 

4 FFW IFAK-Crye* soft armor under LEFT arm Morning 

3 FFW IFAK-Crye* RIGHT leg MOLLE drop-down panel Morning 

2 FFW IFAK-Crye* soft armor under LEFT arm Morning 

5 FFW IFAK-Crye* LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel (above CLS Kit) Morning 

5 FFW CLS-Crye* LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel (below IFAK) Morning 

6 IBA IFAK-ARMY** over RIGHT kidney (lower right back) Morning 

7 IBA IFAK-ARMY** front RIGHT abdomen Morning 

9 IBA IFAK-ARMY** front RIGHT abdomen Morning 

8 IBA IFAK-ARMY** over LEFT kidney (lower left back) Morning 

2 IBA IFAK-ARMY** upper front RIGHT chest Afternoon 

4 IBA IFAK-ARMY** upper front LEFT chest Afternoon 

5 IBA IFAK-ARMY** soft armor under LEFT arm Afternoon 

3 IBA IFAK-ARMY** over LEFT kidney (lower left back) Afternoon 

7 FFW IFAK-Crye RIGHT leg MOLLE drop-down panel Afternoon 

9 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm Afternoon 

8 FFW IFAK-Crye LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel Afternoon 

6 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under RIGHT arm Afternoon 

9 FFW CLS-Crye LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel Afternoon 

9 FFW Drop Pouch*** Lower back panel N/A 

*Crye Associates’ new design for FFW ensemble 

**AMEDD recommended IFAK solution for current Army with insert 

***Used to hold one 500-mL bag of saline intravenous fluid 

11 May 05, Eiler Hall 

Soldier 

Number 

Uniform 

Configuration Kit Type MOLLE-Mounted location 

2 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper front RIGHT chest 

2 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under RIGHT arm 

3 IBA IFAK-ARMY* over LEFT kidney (lower left back) 

3 FFW IFAK-Crye LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel 

4 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper front LEFT chest 

4 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm 

5 IBA IFAK-ARMY* soft armor under LEFT arm 

5 IBA CLS-ARMY back mid-plate2

5 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm 

5 FFW CLS-Crye RIGHT leg MOLLE drop-down panel3

6 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under RIGHT arm 

6 IBA IFAK-ARMY* front RIGHT abdomen 

7 FFW IFAK-Crye RIGHT leg MOLLE drop-down panel 

7 IBA IFAK-ARMY* Upper left back 

8 FFW IFAK-Crye LEFT leg MOLLE drop-down panel 

8 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper right front chest 

9 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm 

9 FFW CLS-Crye Upper Back plate 

9 FFW Drop Pouch** Lower back plate 

9 IBA IFAK-ARMY* front RIGHT abdomen 

9 IBA CLS-ARMY back mid-plate2
167 

12 May 05, Kunzig Range 

Soldier 

Number 

Uniform 

Configuration Kit Type Molle-Mounted location 

2 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

2 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper front RIGHT chest 

3 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

3 IBA IFAK-ARMY* over LEFT kidney (lower left back) 

4 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

4 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper front LEFT chest 

5 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

5 FFW CLS-Crye Upper Back plate3

5 IBA IFAK-ARMY* soft armor under LEFT arm 

5 IBA CLS-ARMY back mid-plate2

6 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

6 IBA IFAK-ARMY* front RIGHT abdomen 

7 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

7 IBA IFAK-ARMY* Upper left back 

8 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

8 IBA IFAK-ARMY* upper right front chest 

9 FFW IFAK-Crye soft armor under LEFT arm1

9 FFW CLS-Crye Upper Back plate 

9 FFW Drop Pouch** Lower back plate 

9 IBA IFAK-ARMY* front RIGHT abdomen 

9 IBA CLS-ARMY back mid-plate 

Notes: 

1 Standardized location 

2 Weight of saline bag carried in Drop pouch by #9, simulated in weight of CLS-Army kit 

3 No. 5 stuffed saline bag into CLS-Crye kit, no drop pouch carried 

13 May 05, McKenna IMT course 

No MLC data collected 
168 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
169 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AAR after-action review 

ACH advanced combat helmet 

ALICE all-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment 

AMEDD Army Medical Department 

APG Aberdeen Proving Ground 

ARL Army Research Laboratory 

BDU battle dress uniform 

BIDS ballistic impact detection system 

CB chemical-biological 

CLS combat lifesaver 

EDE engineering design event 

FFW Future Force Warrior 

FRAGO fragmentary order 

GPS global positioning system 

IBA interceptor body armor 

IFAK Individual first aid kit 

IMT individual movement techniques 

IPT integrated product team 

LSDS life sign detection system 

MLC medical load carriage 

MOLLE modular lightweight load-carrying equipment 

MOPP mission-oriented protective posture 

MOUT military operations in urban terrain 

OPFOR opposing force 
170 

ORP objective rally point 

PAPR personal air-purifying respirator 

PAVS personal air ventilation system 

PSG platoon sergeant 

RFI ready for issue 

SAW squad automatic weapon 

SME subject matter expert 

SPM selectively permeable membrane 

WPSM war fighter physiological status monitor 
171 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M DR M STRUB 

 6359 WALKER LANE SUITE 100 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MA J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MC A DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 166 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-8929 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 COMMANDANT USAADASCH 

 ATTN ATSA CD 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME MS A MARES 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MI J MINNINGER 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM DR V RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1002 ROOM 117 

 1ST CAVALRY REGIMENT RD 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AVNC FIELD ELEMENT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK MR J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MV HQ USAOTC 

 S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 111 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 
172 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M DR B KNAPP 

 ARMY G1 MANPRINT DAPE MR 

 300 ARMY PENTAGON ROOM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJK MS D BARNETTE 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY SUITE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 US ARMY SBCCOM NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 AMSRD NSC SS E BLDG 3 RM 341 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT DR J CHEN 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS MR C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS RM 303A 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF MR C HERNANDEZ 

 BLDG 3040 RM 220 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 10 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW D TURNER 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 545 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 DR THOMAS M COOK 

 ARL-HRED LIAISON 

 PHYSICAL SCIENCES LAB 

 PO BOX 30002 

 LAS CRUCES NM 88003-8002 

 5 US ARMY SOLDIER SYS CMD 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 ATTN AMSRD NCS TP S S BRUNELLE 

 NATICK MA 01760 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TECH LIB 

 BLDG 4600 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MR 

 F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MB J HAWLEY 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MR T HADUCH 

 BLDG 459