PERSONAL 

PROTECTIVE 

EQUIPMENT

Army and Marine 

Corps Are Pursuing 

Efforts to Reduce the 

Weight of Items Worn 

or Carried in Combat

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2017

GAO-17-431

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-431, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2017

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Army and Marine Corps Are Pursuing Efforts to 

Reduce the Weight of Items Worn or Carried in 

Combat

What GAO Found

The Army and Marine Corps have developed requirements for personal 

protective equipment (PPE) to address operational threats in ground combat 

environments, but this PPE has increased in weight over time and has added to 

the total load burden on personnel. PPE primarily consists of hard armor plates, 

soft armor plate carrier vests, and combat helmets. Army and Marine Corps 

officials stated that the PPE provides significant additional protection when 

compared with equipment used prior to operations in Iraq in the 2000s. However, 

they also noted that providing this level of protection adds significant bulk and 

weight to the total load on Soldiers and Marines, which could impede mobility 

and hinder combat effectiveness. According to service-provided data, the typical 

total load in 2016 for Army and Marine Corps ground combat personnel 

averaged about 119 and 117 pounds, respectively, of which the primary PPE 

represented about 27 pounds based on equipment sizes (see figure). Officials 

stated that these totals have increased over time based on the incorporation of 

new PPE and other equipment.

Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat Personnel Total Load Contributors and Approximate 

Average Load (2016)

Recognizing that the weight of PPE and other equipment could have negative 

effects on personnel performance, the Army and the Marine Corps have 

coordinated and developed goals for PPE-related weight reductions and are 

pursuing some efforts to reduce overall load burdens on personnel. The two 

services coordinate through formal working groups and informal methods to 

develop and improve PPE. Army and Marine Corps officials stated that while 

they prioritize protection and operational capabilities when developing PPE, they

have overarching goals of reducing weight, in addition to improving the form, fit, 

and function of equipment. These goals have led to reductions in the weight of 

some PPE. The Army is also developing a goal and plan to reduce the weight of 

hard armor plates by 20 percent by identifying and eliminating excess ballistic 

protection. In addition, the Army and Marine Corps are pursuing other efforts to 

reduce the weight of PPE, such as by giving commanders the option to employ 

varying levels of PPE at their discretion and studying the effects of integrating 

PPE with overall combat loads. Finally, the Army and Marine Corps are exploring 

research initiatives that may reduce the total load on ground combat personnel, 

such as improvements to logistics and aerial delivery capabilities, load 

transferring systems, and other enhancements to equipment.

View GAO-17-431. For more information, 

contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or 

russellc@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Army and Marine Corps ground

combat personnel have long worn a 

variety of PPE such as vests, armor, 

and helmets to help protect them from 

operational risks. The two services

have documented the advanced 

protection capabilities of current PPE 

systems, but identified that the armor 

contributes to the total load burden—or 

cumulative weight of items typically 

worn or carried. In addition to PPE, 

personnel typically carry food, water, 

ammunition, communications

equipment, and other items.

House Report 114-537, accompanying 

a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 

included a provision for GAO to review 

Army and Marine Corps efforts to 

reduce the weight of PPE and other 

equipment worn or carried in combat.

This report describes (1) the current 

operational requirements associated 

with PPE, and how those requirements 

contribute to the total load burden on 

Soldiers and Marines in combat 

environments; and (2) the coordination

between the Army and the Marine 

Corps regarding efforts to reduce the 

weight of PPE and the total load 

burden on personnel.

GAO reviewed Army and Marine Corps

documentation related to PPE, total 

load burden on combat personnel, and 

weight reduction initiatives; and 

interviewed service researchers and 

program officials. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. DOD provided technical 

comments on a draft of this report, 

which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate.
Page i GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Letter 1

Background 3

Current PPE Requirements Are Designed to Address Operational 

Risks but Also Contribute to the Total Load Burden on Ground 

Combat Personnel 5

Army and Marine Corps Have Coordinated on PPE-Related 

Weight Reductions and Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce Overall 

Load Burdens on Personnel 11

Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Agencies and Offices with Whom We Met During This Review 19

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Figures

Figure 1: Primary Personal Protective Equipment and 

Approximate Weight Specifications (2016) 6

Figure 2: Examples of Approximate Army and Marine Corps Total 

Loads by Position (2016) 9

Figure 3: Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program Course 13

Figure 4: Examples of Manned and Unmanned Load Transferring 

Systems 15

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 5, 2017

Congressional Committees

For decades, Army and Marine Corps ground personnel have worn 

various forms of personal protective equipment (PPE), including early 

versions of vests, steel armor, and helmets to reduce operational risks. 

Today, ground personnel operating in combat environments use a PPE 

system consisting of hard and soft armor designed to address 

contemporary threats.1 The Army and Marine Corps have documented 

the advanced protection capabilities of current PPE systems but note that 

the armor is bulky and contributes to the total load burden—that is, the 

cumulative weight of items typically worn or carried. In addition to PPE, 

these items can include ammunition, food, water, communications 

equipment, and items related to a weapon system, among other things. In 

2009 we reported on procedures for evaluating performance 

requirements during the preliminary design testing of hard armor plates 

and found that the Army did not always follow established testing 

protocols or maintain internal controls over the integrity and reliability of 

testing data.2 We recommended that the Army document all key 

decisions to clarify or change testing protocols and provide for an 

independent peer review of testing protocols. The Army generally 

concurred with and implemented these recommendations.

House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for us to 

review Army and Marine Corps efforts to reduce the weight of PPE and 

other equipment worn or carried by ground combat personnel.3 This 

report describes (1) the current operational requirements associated with 

PPE, and how those requirements contribute to the total load burden on 

Soldiers and Marines in combat environments; and (2) the coordination 

 1 This report describes the PPE items typically worn by dismounted Soldiers and Marines 

in combat environments, including the combat helmet, soft armor (Kevlar® and other 

textile materials) plate carrier vests, and hard armor (ceramic composite) plates.

2 GAO, Warfighter Support: Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body Armor Test 

Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding, GAO-10-119 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

16, 2009).

3 See H.R. Rep. No 114-537, at 57-58 (2016).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

between the Army and Marine Corps regarding their efforts to reduce the 

weight of PPE and the total load burden.

To describe the current PPE operational requirements for personnel 

operating in combat environments, we reviewed relevant documentation, 

including guidance and requirements provided by the Army’s Program 

Executive Office-Soldier and the Marine Corps Systems Command.4 We 

also met with program managers from these offices to discuss the PPE 

requirements and procurement processes. Additionally, we met with 

relevant program managers from the Army and Marine Corps to discuss 

the primary equipment expectations for ground personnel, key load 

factors, and PPE weight changes since 2003. To describe the weight and 

how PPE contributes to the load burden on personnel we collected 

available weight data for the PPE and other equipment worn or carried by 

personnel in 2016—the most current data available at the time of our 

review. We also collected available data and documents from the early 

2000s—prior to operations in Iraq that resulted in PPE changes—for the 

purposes of reviewing changes in weight over time. To assess the 

reliability of the data used to describe the weight of PPE and other 

equipment in this report, we discussed with relevant program managers 

topics related to how the data were collected, managed, and checked for 

accuracy and completeness. We also compared the weight data from the 

Army and Marine Corps for similar PPE and other equipment to identify 

any outliers in the weight data provided. We did not find any outliers in the 

weight data or identify any obvious errors. Therefore, we found the data 

to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the weight 

characteristics of PPE and examples of expected load totals on Soldiers 

and Marines.

To describe coordination efforts between the Army and Marine Corps 

related to weight reduction and equipment improvements, we obtained 

and analyzed working group charters and discussed with program 

managers how the Army and Marine Corps formally and informally share 

research and development information for PPE and other equipment. We 

also met with relevant officials to discuss their communication 

mechanisms, goals, plans, and research efforts that could potentially 

 4 For the purposes of this report, operational requirements for PPE refer to those 

protective standards, parameters, and specifications used by the services to guide 

development and address identified threats. The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command 

and the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, 

generate specific operational requirements for soldiers and marines respectively. 
Page 3 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

reduce, offset, or better manage the weight of PPE or other equipment.5

For those weight reduction initiatives identified by the Army and Marine 

Corps, we obtained and analyzed research related documentation and 

interviewed project managers to understand the potential for weight 

reduction, development phases, and any available budget-related data. 

We also discussed efforts to reduce total load burden with research 

officials currently assessing the effects of weight on personnel 

performance. The weight reduction initiatives described in this report 

represent examples and not the totality of options or efforts being 

considered or researched. A complete list of offices and agencies we met 

with during this review is available in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 to May 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Personnel from each of the services utilize a variety of PPE based on 

factors such as the operational environment, job description or 

occupation, and commander discretion.6 For example, Army and Marine 

Corps ground combat personnel utilize soft and hard body armor 

designed to protect against specific small arms, fragmentation, and other 

unconventional threats, such as improvised explosive devices. Likewise, 

personnel with aviation based occupations or explosive ordinance 

disposal responsibilities, and those operating in extreme climates or 

maritime environments have specific PPE options for their specific 

assignments. During ground combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 

the 2000s, Soldiers and Marines typically wore tactical vests or plate 

carriers with hard armor ballistic inserts, a combat helmet, and other 

miscellaneous items such as eye protection and gloves. This PPE, added 

to the other items that personnel typically carry or wear in operational 

 5 For the purposes of this review, we excluded data associated with Army and Marine 

Corps special operations personnel based on differing requirements for PPE and other 

equipment. 

6 This report focuses on the PPE used by Army and Marine Corps ground combat 

personnel but the Navy and Air Force also have specific PPE requirements and utilize a 

variety of equipment. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

environments (weapon systems, food and water, communications 

equipment, and other items), cumulatively represent the total load burden 

on personnel.

The total load varies to some degree between the Army and the Marine 

Corps, and the services use specific load categories for mission-planning 

purposes. For example, the Army uses three combat loads, fighting

(lightest), approach march (mid), and emergency approach march 

(heaviest), based on a number of factors, including mission duration and 

purpose, the likelihood of resupply, climate, and other characteristics that 

affect equipment and supply decisions.7 Similarly, the Marine Corps uses 

the following categories for mission and load-planning purposes: fighting 

(lightest), assault (mid), and sustainment (heaviest).8 According to Army 

guidance and Marine Corps documentation, the two services generally 

use these load parameters as a guide for determining the most 

appropriate equipment and supply levels required to meet mission 

objectives.

The services each have program offices that develop, acquire, and field 

PPE and other equipment based on generated and approved operational 

requirements for Soldiers and Marines. For example, Program Executive 

Office Soldier develops specifications, and acquires equipment, including 

PPE, based on capability requirements produced by the Army’s Training 

and Doctrine Command. Similarly, the Marine Corps Systems Command 

develops, acquires, and fields PPE and other equipment to address 

operational requirements developed by the Capability Development 

Directorate of the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and 

Integration. The service program offices typically collaborate with each 

 7 See generally Army Field Manual No. 21-18, Foot Marches (June 1, 1990). The Army 

fighting load generally includes minimum equipment necessary for direct combat 

operations (including weapon systems, PPE, and reduced amounts of ammunition). The 

approach march load includes fighting load items plus additional equipment necessary for 

prolonged dynamic operations until resupply is available. The emergency approach load 

represents the heaviest load for personnel movements and is generally used only when 

air and ground transportation is unavailable. 

8 The Marine Corps fighting load includes those items essential to the accomplishment of 

immediate combat operations (including PPE, common assault equipment, and weapon 

systems). The assault load includes the fighting load equipment plus additional items 

necessary for individual mission characteristics. The sustainment load contains all items 

required for extended operations. “2016 FMID Individual Marine and Reinforced Rifle 

Squad Combat Load Report,” Feb. 10, 2016. 
Page 5 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

other and partner with industry providers to research, design, and develop 

PPE and other equipment. 

The Army and the Marine Corps have developed requirements for PPE to 

address operational threats but these requirements contribute to the total 

load burden on ground combat personnel. The services expect ground 

combat personnel to wear a combination of equipment developed to meet 

these requirements, including hard armor plates, soft armor plate carrier 

vests, and combat helmets, as shown in figure 1.9 According to Army and 

Marine Corps program managers, these items individually provide 

specific functions that together form a protective system for personnel.

 9 Hard armor plates refer to the enhanced small arms protective inserts, and the 

enhanced side ballistic insert. Other PPE items include eye and ear protection, gloves, 

knee pads, and protective undergarments.

Current PPE 

Requirements Are 

Designed to Address 

Operational Risks but 

Also Contribute to the 

Total Load Burden on 

Ground Combat 

Personnel

Performance Parameters 

and Protection Standards 

Guide the Development of 

Primary PPE
Page 6 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Figure 1: Primary Personal Protective Equipment and Approximate Weight Specifications (2016)

Note: The equipment in figure 1 represents the primary personal protective equipment worn by both 

Soldiers and Marines in combat environments. The enhanced combat helmet, enhanced small arms 

protective insert, and enhanced side ballistic insert hard armor plates are shared between the Army 

and the Marine Corps. The weight specifications presented are approximate figures based on 

service-provided data for size medium equipment. These totals are subject to change based on 

updates, modifications, or improvements implemented by the services.
Page 7 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

According to Army and Marine Corps documentation, the current system 

was initially developed and fielded to address specific threats facing 

personnel operating in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) in 2003. Officials 

stated that the two services conducted capability and threat assessments 

in this theater to determine how best to mitigate threats without hindering 

mobility or combat effectiveness. The services have documented these 

assessments and protection requirements in PPE guidance, technical 

documentation, and acquisition specifications, which include the size, 

weight, coverage area, protective standards, and other key parameters 

for each primary PPE component.10 These documents standardize PPE 

expectations and operational requirements for Soldiers and Marines. 

Officials noted that they are able to change PPE requirements or 

standards to meet evolving needs, incorporate technological 

advancements, or modify goals. Additionally, they provide industry 

partners with specifications needed to develop equipment. While the 

services have produced individual PPE guidance and technical 

documentation, officials noted that they jointly develop protection 

requirements and acquire some of the primary PPE components. For 

example, the Army and Marine Corps jointly acquired modern hard armor 

plates and have coordinated on the development and acquisition of the 

enhanced combat helmet. The two services also have similar standards 

for the soft armor plate carrier vests, but Marine Corps officials noted that 

because each service has some unique operational requirements, they 

developed and acquired this item separately.

 10 Examples of primary PPE requirements documentation include (1) Marine Corps, 

Family of Body Armor (FBA) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 8 (Mar. 

30, 2012); (2) Marine Corps, Urgent Statement of Need (SON) for the Enhanced Combat 

Helmet (ECH) (Mar. 2, 2009); (3) Department of the Army, Operational Requirements 

Document (ORD) for Modular Body Armor (Mar. 4, 1996); (4) Department of the Army, 

Capability Production Document for Soldier Protection System (SPS) Integrated Head 

Protection System (IHPS) (Feb. 1, 2016). 
Page 8 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Army and Marine Corps officials we met with stated that the body armor 

that was fielded to meet current threats provides significant additional 

protection when compared with previously available equipment. However, 

they also noted that providing this level of protection adds significant bulk 

and weight to the total load on Soldiers and Marines, which could impede 

mobility and have other adverse effects. Both Marine Corps guidance and 

Army capability requirements indicate that PPE should provide adequate 

protection levels without hindering mobility or combat effectiveness.11 The 

primary PPE (hard armor plates, soft armor vest, and combat helmet) 

currently used by both Army and Marine Corps personnel averages 

approximately 27 pounds (for size medium equipment), and adds to the 

weight of other uniform items and equipment worn or carried by 

personnel. The cumulative weight of all uniform items and other 

equipment expected to be carried or worn by personnel in operational 

environments represents the total load and can vary according to 

individual position (e.g., squad leader, rifleman, grenadier) and mission 

characteristics (see figure 2).

 11 See Marine Corps, Policy for Implementation of Individual Marine Mobility Attribute

(Mar. 25, 2016); Army Capability Production Document for Soldier Protection System 

(SPS) Vital Torso Protection (VTP) (June 25, 2015).

PPE Systems Increase the 

Total Load Burden on 

Ground Combat 

Personnel, Which Could 

Hinder Combat 

Effectiveness
Page 9 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Figure 2: Examples of Approximate Army and Marine Corps Total Loads by Position (2016)

Note: The Army approach march load and the Marine Corps assault load include those items typically 

required for immediate combat operations plus additional equipment such as food, water, and 

additional ammunition to sustain operations (until resupply is available). Army and Marine Corps 

officials said that these loads were typically used by ground combat personnel but may vary based on 

mission characteristics and other factors such as the range of PPE sizes.

According to program managers we met with, the typical total load on 

personnel has increased since about 2003 based on the incorporation of 

new PPE systems and other equipment that is designed to enhance 

personnel performance or protection capabilities. According to 2016 

Marine Corps data, a typical load is expected to be approximately 90 to 

159 pounds, or an average of 117 pounds, depending on the individual 

function within the squad. Similarly, Army ground personnel are expected 

to wear and carry approximately 96 to140 pounds, or an average of 119 

pounds, depending on individual roles. These can vary based on 

individual PPE sizes and other equipment variations. However, the 

expected totals for Army ground combat personnel generally align with 

actual load totals ranging from 96 to 151 pounds, reported by personnel 

recently operating in Afghanistan.
Page 10 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

However, program officials also explained that excessive loads can have 

negative effects on personnel mobility, lead to earlier fatigue onset, and 

exacerbate the risk associated with high temperature operational 

environments. Army Field Manual 21-18, published in 1990, recommends 

that the fighting load not exceed 48 pounds and that the approach/march 

load not exceed 72 pounds.12 According to program managers, the 

Marine Corps does not have specific load thresholds or maximums, but 

documentation identifies that loads in excess of 30 percent of body weight 

for ground combat personnel increase the likelihood of detrimental 

performance effects. Medical researchers from the services whom we 

met with agreed that these are some of the risks associated with 

substantial combat loads, and stated that they have attempted to 

correlate load burdens with detrimental performance and increased injury 

risks. For example, the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego, CA, 

collected injury data from personnel operating in Afghanistan and Iraq 

between 2011 and 2013 and concluded that excessive loads may have 

exacerbated the reported injuries. Service officials said that they are 

studying these potential effects on personnel performance, but also 

stated that the available load guidelines could be outdated and not 

reflective of current PPE systems and other capability enhancing 

equipment. Additionally, they note that these thresholds may not be 

appropriate for all personnel and that load thresholds or limits could 

restrict commander flexibility in the field by potentially impairing their 

ability to properly outfit personnel to meet mission requirements. 

Nonetheless, officials from both services stated that they continually seek 

ways to reduce the weight of PPE and reduce or offset the overall loads 

on personnel while maintaining operational capabilities and protection 

standards.

 12 Army Field Manual No. 21-18, Foot Marches, para. 2-7 (June 1, 1990). Army officials 

expect an update to this manual in 2017. 
Page 11 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Army and Marine Corps officials coordinate through formal and informal 

working groups that seek to develop and improve PPE. For example, two 

to four times annually the services hold a Cross-Service Warfighter 

Equipment Board, which allows Army and Marine Corps representatives, 

along with members of the other military services, to share developments 

and advancements made to PPE and other individual equipment. The 

Army and Marine Corps also participate in the Personal Protective 

Equipment Capabilities Development Integrated Product Team, an 

interagency forum that shares information, such as injury data, research 

and development findings, material developments, technologies, and test 

methodologies, among key stakeholders involved in PPE development. In 

addition, the Army and Marine Corps work together on the development 

and procurement of PPE, such as the hard armor plates and the 

enhanced combat helmet that meet both services’ needs.

Informally, the Army and Marine Corps regularly communicate on a 

variety of PPE-related research, technology advancements, and planning 

efforts. Officials from both Army and Marine Corps program offices 

explained that coordination is mutually beneficial based on similar 

equipment needs for ground combat personnel. Officials noted that they 

have collaborated on the development, management, and procurement of 

current hard armor plates since their inception in the early 2000s. 

Additionally, in August 2016 we observed a Marine Corps-sponsored 

industry event focused on the next iteration of the enhanced combat 

helmet, where an Army engineer participated and shared with vendors 

the Army’s perspective on weight reduction priorities for the helmet. Army 

and Marine Corps officials stated that they collaborate with vendors to 

gather input for the development of PPE.

Army and Marine 

Corps Have 

Coordinated on PPERelated Weight 

Reductions and Are 

Pursuing Efforts to 

Reduce Overall Load 

Burdens on 

Personnel

Army and Marine Corps 

Coordinate to Develop and 

Improve PPE
Page 12 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Army and Marine Corps program managers said that when developing or 

improving PPE and other equipment, they prioritize protection and 

operational capabilities, and that they have overarching goals of reducing 

weight, and improving form, fit, and function of equipment. These 

overarching goals have led to some improvements and reductions in the 

weight of some PPE. For example, the Army and Marine Corps have 

made updates and redesigned aspects of their respective soft armor 

vests, which according to program managers have resulted or will result 

in weight savings of up to approximately 40 to 50 percent, or about 6 to 7 

pounds when compared with previous versions. In addition, according to 

Marine Corps documentation, the service is incentivizing industry partners 

to produce lighter equipment and systems by incorporating weight 

reduction as a part of the source selection process for the enhanced 

combat helmet.

Further, in 2016 the Army began developing a goal and subsequent plan 

to reduce the weight of hard armor plates by 20 percent, or about 2 

pounds, by identifying and eliminating excess ballistic protection 

parameters and potentially updating testing methodologies.13 Officials 

said that protection standards have largely prevented significant 

reductions to date; however, they believe that the plates may be overdesigned and heavier than necessary, based on actual operational 

threats and PPE performance data collected in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

According to research officials, updates would allow for weight reductions 

without increasing the ballistic risk to personnel. According to Army 

officials, the plan is currently pending approval by senior Army officials. If 

approved, researchers expect to develop new hard armor plates, with 

reduced weight, in fiscal year 2019.

The Army and Marine Corps are also pursuing other efforts to reduce the 

weight of PPE. For example, the Army and Marine Corps are promoting 

PPE scalability as an approach to realize near-term weight reductions. 

PPE scalability allows Soldiers and Marines to vary the levels of PPE 

worn, from minimal protection or no PPE to a maximum level whereby 

Soldiers and Marines utilize all available PPE. The Army and Marine 

Corps have categorized these protection levels based on configurations 

of all available PPE, and officials said that potential weight reductions 

could be realized if commanders were to adjust protection levels (amount 

 13 The RAND Corporation also recommended in 2012 that DOD review and potentially 

update its body armor testing methodologies to ensure that armor plates are not overdesigned.

Army and Marine Corps 

Prioritize Protection 

Capabilities but Have 

Reduced the Weight of 

Some PPE and Have 

Plans for Additional 

Reductions
Page 13 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

of PPE utilized) based on an evaluation of environment, threat, and 

mission characteristics. However, Marine Corps officials noted that 

commanders may be reluctant to increase operational risk by reducing 

PPE protection levels.

Finally, Army and Marine Corps researchers are exploring ways to better 

integrate individual equipment to provide improved functionality and 

potentially save weight. The Army’s Warrior Integration Site and the 

Marine Corps’ Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad research the integration 

potential of all individual equipment worn by Soldiers and Marines. 

According to officials with whom we met, the two services see their 

analyses potentially resulting in improvements to the weight, form, and 

function of Soldier and Marine equipment. One analytical method used by 

both the Army and the Marine Corps entails load effect assessment 

programs that use instrumented obstacle courses to gather data and 

evaluate mobility and functions based on various combat loads that 

personnel experience (see figure 3 and associated video). Officials 

explained that these data and analyses help them identify specific 

equipment that could or should be improved. While these efforts may 

have implications for reducing the load burden of Soldiers and Marines, 

the main goal for both organizations is to improve personnel performance 

by providing better integration and function for equipment commonly 

utilized by Soldiers and Marines.

Figure 3: Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program Course

To view a video of the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program, see http://gao.gov/products/GAO-17-431.
Page 14 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Army and Marine Corps researchers are exploring initiatives—such as 

improvements to logistics and resupply capabilities, load transfer 

technologies, lighter ammunition, and reduced battery usage—that may 

decrease the total load burden on ground combat personnel.

• Improved Logistics and Resupply Capabilities. Researchers at the 

Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center said 

that they are exploring new technologies and systems that could 

provide improved logistics support for squads in the form of precise 

and on-demand resupply. Army officials noted that personnel loads 

are affected by confidence levels in resupply and logistics support. 

For example, squads that are more confident in resupply may be 

more willing to carry less ammunition, water, food, and other supplies, 

thus reducing the total weight carried by personnel. Therefore, 

developing new aerial delivery systems capable of providing smalland medium-sized payloads with precision could enable Soldiers and 

Marines to carry not more than the necessary equipment and 

supplies. The Marine Corps has implemented one of these systems, 

the Joint Precision Airdrop System, which was developed by the 

Army’s Aerial Delivery Directorate at the Natick Soldier Research 

Development & Engineering Center. This system is designed to 

accurately deliver (within 150 meters) up to 700 pounds of supplies to 

personnel operating in inaccessible environments. A Marine Corps 

program official stated that the system would likely alter planning and 

allow personnel to forgo packing excess food, water, ammunition, and 

other supplies. They also stated that the procurement and 

sustainment costs for all units of this system totaled approximately 

$850,000 for fiscal years 2013 through 2016.

• Load Transfer Technologies: The Army and Marine Corps are 

evaluating both manned and unmanned load transfer technologies 

capable of travelling with units or squads (see figure 4). These 

technologies may allow Soldiers and Marines to offload some items 

such as food, water, or ammunition. For example, the Marine Corps is 

currently employing 144 MRZR all-terrain vehicles capable of traveling 

with squads and transporting up to 1500 pounds of personnel, 

equipment, and supplies. Marine Corps officials stated that the total 

acquisition and sustainment costs for all the vehicles are projected to 

be approximately $15 million between fiscal years 2016 and 2018. 

Similarly, the Army is in the process of developing an unmanned or 

optionally-manned squad support vehicle capable of traveling with 

dismounted personnel and carrying up to 1000 pounds of equipment. 

The prototypes include both tracked and wheeled variants. Army 

officials stated that they plan to pursue this as an official program and 

Army and Marine Corps 

Are Exploring Other 

Research Initiatives to 

Reduce the Total Load 

Burden on Ground 

Combat Personnel
Page 15 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

field the vehicles in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. In addition, the 

Defense Advanced Research Project Agency supported similar 

research and development efforts by designing and testing the 

Legged Squad Support System, which researchers stated had the 

intended capability to carry up to 1,000 pounds of equipment and 

travel semi-autonomously with squads and fire teams. While the Army 

and Marine Corps are not currently pursuing this specific system, they 

plan to test additional unmanned ground systems with similar load 

transferring and mobility capabilities.

Figure 4: Examples of Manned and Unmanned Load Transferring Systems

• Lighter Ammunition: Army and Marine Corps program managers 

are developing lightweight technologies and monitoring third-party 

research related to the development of polymer-case ammunition for 

commonly used .50 caliber, 7.62 mm, and 5.56 mm rounds. According 

to program managers, transitioning to polymer based ammunition 

casing could reduce ammunition weight by as much as 20 to 35 

percent based on the weight difference between lighter polymer 

casing and traditional brass casing. The Marine Corps began testing a 

polymer-case .50 caliber round in March 2017, which could replace 

legacy ammunition without modifying the .50 caliber weapon systems 

currently in use. However, significant weight savings for personnel 

would require implementing this technology for smaller-caliber rounds 

with lightweight polymer-case compatible weapon systems, and 

officials noted that these investments would likely hinder near-term 

implementation. 

• Reduced Battery Usage: The Army and Marine Corps are 

researching potential hardware and software changes that could 

reduce the energy demand for some commonly carried electronics 
Page 16 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

and thus reduce energy usage and weight associated with batteries. 

For example, Army researchers stated that they are evaluating 

systems that harvest energy from Soldiers’ movements and solar 

technology that could be used to power communications systems and 

other battery-driven equipment. Additionally, officials noted that they 

are monitoring private-sector technology developments that could 

reduce the weight of batteries by 20 percent while providing the same 

amount of energy as those batteries currently used. Marine Corps 

program officials explained that they are also developing a single 

radio with the same capability as is provided by two separate radios 

currently used by Marines. Officials stated that this new radio may 

reduce the need to carry excess batteries. However, Army and Marine 

Corps officials noted that battery demand and its associated weight 

continue to pose a significant challenge. For example, Army program 

managers said that squad leaders currently carry approximately 8 

pounds of batteries to power a variety of optics, communications

systems, and other equipment.
Page 17 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

DOD provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army 

and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Cary Russell

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Agency Comments 
Page 18 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Agencies and Offices with Whom 

We Met During This Review

Page 19 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

• Army

• Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology, Program Executive Office Soldier, Product Manager 

Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment

• Training and Doctrine Command, Maneuver Center of Excellence, 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate, Soldier 

Requirements Division, Soldier Systems Branch

• Training and Doctrine Command, Maneuver Center of Excellence, 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate, Maneuver 

Battle Lab, Experimentation Branch

• Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center, 

Warfighter Directorate

• Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center, 

Aerial Delivery Directorate

• U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine

• Navy and Marine Corps

• Naval Health Research Center

• Office of Naval Research, Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and 

Combating Terrorism Department

• Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Futures 

Directorate, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory

• Program Executive Office Land Systems, Program Manager, Light 

Tactical Vehicles

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager Infantry 

Weapon Systems, Product Manager Infantry Combat Equipment

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager Infantry 

Weapon Systems, Product Manager Reconnaissance and 

Amphibious Raids

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager Ammunition

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager Marine 

Expeditionary Rifle Squad

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager Marine AirGround Task Force Command Control & Communications

• Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration

Appendix I: Agencies and Offices with Whom 

We Met During This Review
Appendix I: Agencies and Offices with Whom 

We Met During This Review

Page 20 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

• Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Fires and Maneuver Integration 

Division

• Other Department of Defense Organizations

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 21 GAO-17-431 Personal Protective Equipment

Cary Russell, (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Alissa Czyz (Assistant Director), 

Larry Junek (Assistant Director), Alexandra Gonzalez, Amie Lesser, Sean 

Manzano, Michael Shaughnessy, Michael Silver, Grant Sutton, and 

Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to the report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100926)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.