USMC FILBE Bergen

An informative Video on how to assemble your 17lb USMC FILBE Bergen Back Pack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FemRN3y8Wv4

And as the intrepid Marine grunt attempts to assemble his overly complicated pack, the enemy sneaks up and brains him with a rock.

What ever happened to KISS?

The technique of putting on the 17lb empty pack was pretty unusual as well. Molle gone mad!

I thought an empty 6 1/2 pound Lowe Alpine Salient was pushing it for weight with its 1000D Cordura fabric. The FILBE is apparently only 500D Cordura

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkT2Rfggq5k

This just seems ridiculous in so many different ways.

A lot of mil spec gear is quite decent; this is not one of those items.

I am someone who has been issued and used(and cursed at)an ALICE pack.If i can recall it wasn't 17 pounds empty an was a lot easier to use.How is it that whenever the military "improves" some thing it only gets heavier and harder to use.The ALICE was not comfortable to wear but did the job well.I can see that a lot of field grade improvements using the miracle trio(duct tape,zip ties and 550)done to this.That will only add more to it's weight.Some ultra light campers base load is thirty five pounds.This pack is half that with nothing in it.Military intelligence-SHEEEESH!

BOATMAN
John

Actually lightweight campers have a base load at around 17 lbs. The ultralight crowd would be around 12 lbs.

Try under 5 lbs.
http://www.adventurealan.com/2-4_index.htm

I stand corrected.But a pack that weighs seventeen pounds with nothing in it and needs a half hour video to assemble it.COME ON!I never heard of an Alice pack until it was handed to me in pieces.Twenty minutes later and some guess work and it was good to go.The ALICE is no lightweight pack an was designed around the Viet Nam conflict.Why couldn't the DOD go to any number of pack makers to get a lighter,cheaper and more ergonomic pack baffles me.I would rather wrap my stuff up in a shelter half and make a ROYCROFT frame from the shelter poles then add the heft of THAT pack.The average marine wears his body weight in gear in a combat zone.When will the Pentagon get a clue.SORRY,Rant Off....

BOATMAN
John

It's not just packs. I spent a winter in Korea and I really appreciated the dacron underwear sent to me. Iit was much better than anything available through military channels when you were on guard duty at 2 AM in frozen Chosen.

Still, some stuff is pretty good.

I suspect that a 17 lb pack meets a govt spec of being capable of being dropped 30' from a hovering helicopter while containing a full combat load and not rupturing.

That's mil-spec for you.....

As an aside, although the gear has changed drastically, the average weight carried by the average grunt has not changed since the days of the Roman legion.

Food is lighter, you carry more meals. The weapon is made lighter; add sights, flashlights, forward handles. You ditch one piece of gear as outdated, to be handed two more pieces of gear now designated as important must be carried.

As a grunt I carried what I had to, substituted where I could, and made do without to save weight.

Making a soldier tote more load to make up for poor planning, lousy logistics, and inadequate resupply in this day and age makes no sense.

We fight battles using the latest technology and strategies that were proven obsolete during World War 2.

Command is at least 50 years behind the times.

FIBLE Bergen - 17 lbs

3 days of MREs (3 per day) - 13.9 lbs

3 Litres of water - 6.6 lbs

MSS 4 Part sleep system - 10 lbs

Total already - 47.5 lbs

USMC Marines won't be walking very far, very fast.
Going back to an ALICE pack external frame way of thinking seems to be a retrograde step over the more robust and lighter ILBE pack that preceded it.

JBMat makes an excellent point.That is exactly the reason why PSK's evolved in my opinion.I think it is also the reason geurilla fighters and rebels run circles around a "proper" army.They do not follow this dogma.Fast and light,hit and run worked for us during the American revolution.Bureaucracy NEVER learns.....

BOATMAN
John

Always the rear echelon types that come up with these "new and improved" versions of tried and true. They never seem to realize the most desirable characteristics of combat/patrol innovations. That's also how you end up with a sub-MBR with "made by Mattel" stamped on the side of it.

It is really easy and a lot of fun to diss the military, and they, being human, will screw up and miss the boat. But, where would 4WD be without the WWII Willys Jeep? What would you shoot game with if it weren't for the 30-06? We would still be flying biplanes if it weren't for military R&D. You can go on and on with examples.....computers, for instance.

The civilian sector is about to get hold of military developed drone technology and that is going to revolutionize a lot of activities (like SAR, as we are discussing in another thread).

Just could not restrain myself on this one. Boatman, you have a very limited and superficial understanding of military history and warfare. Guerrillas do not "run circles" around a proper army, the proper army is defeated by political means, not by force. The American revolution was not primarily fought by using guerrilla tactics, although this was successful in the South and at times in the beginning, the American rebels primarily used conventional warfare to fight the British.

Another major factor in our Revolution's success was the involvement of the French and Spanish. Yorktown would never have happened without a French naval victory.

In an agrarian society, guerrillas are fine except at planting and harvest time. We had some problems there. And we had home field advantage. The British had a long supply and logistics line to maintain. There was also a certain amount of sympathy for the American cause back in Merrie England.

In many ways, the U.S. Revolution was the first and maybe the prototype for later "wars of national liberation."

What started as a military conflict between often poorly trained rebel militia aka guerrillas, morphed into a well trained and equipped (then) modern Army.

For much of the War, the rebels could dominate the countryside, while the British dominated the ports and cities.

For reasons of their own, the French chose to help equip the US rebels with up to date arms and ammo.

European military "advisors" appeared to help train and lead the rebels: e.g. Von Steuben (the first Inspector General) helped train Washington's Army in European tactics and helped adapt them to the local Environment; Kościuszko is often credited with being the "father" of the US Army Engineers. There were others.

At Yorktown, there were about 8000 French troops on the ground; without them, (and their 29 ships offshore keeping the Royal Navy away), a rebel victory would have been in doubt.

The take away is that guerrillas can deny a conventional army "victory", but can only achieve victory if it can 1) develop or obtain sufficient conventional force to defeat the enemy at their own game or 2) frustrate and demoralize the enemy for a sufficient period of time that they "give up."

Reportedly, both Mao and Giap studied the American Revolution's military history....

Sorry for the hijack of the thread. . .

OK, I've been trying hard to stay out of this one, since in my time as a Marine we were still using "Deuce Gear" (as in 782). I have no experience with Alice Gear let alone FILBE, and therefore can't comment on their relative merits, or lack therof.

However I don't quite buy the implication that the US military is incompetent. In Vietnam, the whole reason the main force NVA came into the fight is because the Viet Cong guerillas had been largely defeated. Regarding the current conflicts, I've been reading a book about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and the raid that killed him. Admiral William McRaven (head of JSOC) estimated that by the time they started planning that raid, he had been involved (either on the ground or in a command role) in several thousand successful raids on "guerilla fighters and rebels".

In the OBL raid they flew through the mountains at low level at night, evaded air defense systems, coped with a crashed helicopter, killed OBL, and escaped with his body. They did all this without loosing a single man or killing any civilians outside of OBL's compound. And had Pakistan tried to intervene and the raiders had to fight their way out, they had a quick reaction force staged nearby inside Pakistan, another larger force staged just across the border, and fighter jets ready to take on the Paki air force.

I think our miltary is exceedingly competent.

EDIT 2: McRaven is an admiral, not a general. Typing faster than I was thinking!

IIRC weren't the up to date arms basically the same arms they had been using for hunting with a bayonet lug added?

Yep, there is some excellent Mil spec gear around. I'm currently looking for a UK supplier for the Sealline ILBE dry Sacks.

http://www.amazon.com/ILBE-Sack-65L-Olive-Retail/dp/B002PWFSK8

For some reason the newer FILBE Bergen doesn't appear to come with a dry compression sack though.

There are lighter Bergens available with larger capacities such as the Mil spec offerings from Norrona, Berghaus, Karrimor, Web Tex and Lowe Alpine but for Military Training purposes used in developing Hill Fitness these do require the addition of multiple LSBT's



But I can't seem to find a NSN number for LSBT (Load Simulator Brick Training)...

Question - What is the source for the statement that the pack weights 17 pounds? Granted, it is surely not a lightweight, but seventeen seems excessive - seven might be closer, just looking at part of the video. I'll bet the troops will figure out ways to lighten the load in any event

Before jumping to conclusions on this piece of gear, and by implication on the US military procurement system, I would like to hear comments from a few active duty grunts who have actually used in the field. In the meantime this reviewer has actually tested one and seems to like it. From the photos, it looks to be a monster, when fully set up.

That indeed is a positive review and that is good news. It looks like it is approximately equal to any number of civilian packs and built up for the rigors of military service, except - the pack strap tore off during its initial use (!!!) Perhaps there should be a separate pouch for duct tape and another for baling wire/550cord.

Let's face it - nobody's perfect and glitches do occur. Civilian designers can work these things out with extensive beta testing before putting products on the market.

Appears to have the same ALICE Stoop problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBakphJvNIs

The FILBE does appear to have a much superior back system (modern) to help distribute the load. Not impressed with the CoG issue though that is clearly shown let alone the weight of Bergen pack.



ahem, really

Oh, I'm not knocking the Military. It's the bureaucracy that I got problems with.

Exactly what Benjamin said!

BOATMAN
John

Amen

Ben, then I apologize. I guess I misundertood you.

It's just that you said: "Making a soldier tote more load to make up for poor planning, lousy logistics, and inadequate resupply.... We fight battles using the latest technology and strategies that were proven obsolete during World War 2. ..... Command is at least 50 years behind the times."

I always thought "planning", "logistics", "resupply", "fighting battles", "strategies" and "command" are things the military does, rather than the bureaucrats. My mistake.

Wish I could actually watch those dang blasted You-Tube vids, I always get an error message, oh well

Hikermor,

I have one and it weighted in about 14 lbs without the radio and accessory pouches, so 17 is probably close with all attachments.

They are designed by Arc'Teryx, and built by Propper. They are actually very nice packs except for the weight. Weight is due to the heavy cordura used and all the Molle webbing. They are not fragile, to say the least.

If you strap the Assault pack on the back of the main pack it is even heavier. You can get the ILBE packs on ebay for pretty good prices if you are willing to carry the weight.

I switched to an Eberlestock pack that is similar in design but uses much lighter materials and only weighs about 7 lbs, which is about the same as a large ALICE.

Gotta love hand-held digital travel scales.

Greg

Interesting. Arc'teryx makes nice packs. I used one rather hard for several years before I retired. I was by the office a while ago and my successor was still using it. It was very comfortable and quite tough, and not at all heavy.

In my experience, once most of them made O-5 (Lt. Colonel, Commander, etc) they became political officers. In Baghdad, these were the officers that were dealing with the contractors and working mostly at desks. These people tended to really wrench up the works trying to get things done. I'm sure there were some out in the field doing real soldier work, but there were so many command rank officers and GS civilian equivalents mucking about in the IZ that we struggled to get anything done with them. Think of Everett McGill's character (I know he was a Major, but he was obviously bucking for a promotion) in Heartbreak Ridge and you get a good idea of the kind of crap we had to deal with. I don't consider that regular army. Real GI's worked to solve problems. Command staff seemed hell-bent on making as many as possible. They couldn't make one decision on their feet. That's not a way to fight any battle.

Part of the problem is everyone pitches in an idea and the original item gets all gacked up.

It has to be "blah blah blah and blah" capable of "feats superman wouldn't want to do" and able to be used by a guy who is cold/wet/tired/hungry/lost with a bad attitude to boot.

I was a guinea pig at the Natick Test labs a long time ago. Saw some really nice gear there, most of which, while perfectly usable, never got fielded. "Didn't meet standards"

Fast forward 18 yrs, the SGM of the test labs was a old friend, who after listening to techno-babble, got knee and arm pads off the shelf for less that 1/4 the price the contractor was quoting. And to my amazement, they were fielded as is off the shelf.

Not all desk jockeys are jerks.