Historical Camping Answers

Years ago, I mentioned that the soldiers during the American Civil War packed rather lightly for their time in the field. There was a good conversation about what did they actually carry. How much of a unit 's equipment was carried in wagons bringing up the rear...

I have found these answers and more in the YouTube videos made by Kenneth Kramm of East Texas. He covers camping in an historical sense of how bedrolls were used by soldiers and civilians, Bindles used by HoBo 's, etc, through the years.

I used a bedroll when I first joined the Army. It was smaller and lighter than the issued sleeping bag. It was made by stacking and rolling these things in this order:

Poncho
Space Blanket
wool blanket
poncho liner

It could be carried in different ways as it was flexible. I slept in temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit with it. Not exactly toasty but functional and I could sleep.

I would have preferred slightly larger items to ensure better coverage when I was rolled up in it though.

I just googled "bedroll" in an attempt to find wildman's reference and came up with this gem. Usually we tend toward the "light and cheap" end of the spectrum, but for a refreshing change, here is an item that is not only heavy, it is also expensive! Who would buy this? https://www.duluthpack.com/pathfinder-bedroll.html

Put Kenneth Kramm in YouTube's search engine and look over what he has posted. His video's are uniquely different.

Nice find! Yet to watch the vids, but I like the Russian bedroll version much more. It's based on the standard issue felt greatcoat (overcoat), which works as a great wool blanket, water repelling, but quite heavy:


Can be carried in various ways, stuffed with gear and supplies, but the best way to carry it, imho, is "skatka":




What I like best is that you can distribute the weight in the front and in the back evenly, as well as its "best in the industry shoulder strap padding"



When wearing the coat, the stuff goes into the super simple backpack - a plain flat square bag with the single loop of quite a long and strong strap (often just a rope) attached to the lower corners, tightening the neck of the bag by its middle length to form two shoulder straps):

I decided to be a tough girl on a weekend outing a few years back and used this combination, under a second poncho that I hung as a modified lean-to. It keep me warm and dry, and I slept pretty well - except for the Spring bugs. A head net helped but didn't stop the constant buzzing.

I don't remember where I saw this link, whether here or elsewhere in the last week or so.

http://www.elliscanvastents.com/products/cavalry-bedrolls

A heavy woolen greatcoat or blanket has been used as a makeshift bedroll for a very long time. It works, I've tried it on more than a few occasions myself, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's superior in any way to a good sleeping bag.

Back when my dad was in the army, they were still issued woolen blankets and long winter coats in the cold months. They must have been among the last generations before sleeping bags were issued. From what I've heard - and it's one of the topics more frequently brought up when dad remembers his army days - the greatcoat was hated by most. It was warm all right, but hard to keep clean, irritating to the naked skin and tended to absorb rain water very quickly. Once proper sleeping bags were introduced they were universally welcomed as a superior solution.

This mirrors my own experience as well. Wool is not really water repellent, certainly not in a major downpour. It absorbs water readily, which makes a wet woolen coat even heavier and uncomfortable to wear. While wool still retains a lot of its insulation qualities when wet, it takes a long time to dry. Which is oftentimes quite impractical in the field.

For all its good properties wool is no magic material. A traditional woolen bedroll works reasonably well in a cold dry climate. In a cold wet environment though, it's problematic at best. Back in the day when no better alternative was available, people would make do what they had - they would wrap themselves up in a thick greatcoat or blanket and try to spend the night the best they could. But don't delude yourself for a minute that it was particularly cosy or warm.

These days, a modern sleeping bag provides more comfort and protection from the elements, in a smaller and lighter package. So I don't really see much point in going backwards, unless one is a dedicated traditionalist for tradition's sake.

I am not advocating a bedroll as better than a modern sleeping bag. It works if that is what you have. Wool does absorb water, though not as quickly as cotton, and unlike cotton, it will retain its insulating capabilities to a great extent even though wet. Wool is also fire retardant, and I have tested this many times as a demonstration for my scouts and their families; I would say that 100% wool is almost fire proof. I have burned cotton, and the synthetic fleece and other synthetic materials go up very quickly, melt to the body and continue to burn (I have witnessed this first hand in a parachuting accident where someone landed in power lines).

When I first joined the Army we had a cotton sleeping bag, with a cotton cover, with some poor synthetic insulation inside, sometimes you could get a down bag, but these were rare and in poor condition. The bag was bulky and would not keep you warm when wet (made by the lowest bidder!). The bedroll I described was a better solution in many ways, snd worked better in most conditions. It also had the advantage of being there when you needed it, unlike the bulky and difficult to pack sleeping bag.

Today's sleeping bag technologies are far superior than older bags in insulating ability and compressibility. I would only advocate someone sleeping out in very cold weather with a bedroll as a valuable experience to help you understand the capabilities and limitations of such gear. If you are like me and generally carry blankets in the car instead of sleeping bags, it would be helpful to understand the limitations and the best configurations of what you have. Testing is always good.

I actually have an old Russian greatcoat that I have used in the woods, and it was very warm, though it is a rough wool that itches terribly. You don't want it on your bare skin.

I am surprised to hear about the poor quality military sleeping bags you experienced. Again, going back to "starving student times (1950s)" one of the better mil surp items I used was an Army "mountain" sleeping bag, filled with a down/feathers mix. It was heavy and a tad bulky, but I know I slept out in a snow cave at -30F rather comfortably. Must have been Korean police action vintage....

If it hadn't been for mil surp, I would never have been able to venture beyond the pavement. I retain fond memories of that bag.

The old russian army greatcoat can be waterproofed to some extent and at the same time made less "itchy" by soaking it in a special solution. I don't know the recipe, but I recall that after the treatment (and drying for several days) it becomes much heavier and stiffer. Also the wool's color becomes somewhat brownish.

Sure thing, it's not a substitute for a good sleeping bag, but I'm pondering an idea to use a sleeping bag in a "skatka" manner to store and wear the gear. Perhaps, with a nylon tarp or/and hammock as an outer shell. The ideal backpack is no backpack at all.

Now if someone could only replicate that coat in synthetic material, adding Goretex and DWR coatings, and all that kind of stuff, it truly would be a great coat.

Patagonia and TNF should get cracking....

Handwash itchy wool in Woolite, in the bathtub. It works for me, YMMV.
No affiliation, standard disclaimers.

Wool, canvas, leather and down sure worked well for a long time before any synthetics came along. They took more care perhaps. Skins before that were functional, requiring even more care. Used within their limitations, they have served man well enough.

For now, you can rely on synthetics to get you by. When the bubble goes up, we will be back to the 19th century apparel options once again.

I remember reading about a college project where the students designed coats for the homeless. The were like hooded greatcoats but of some modern materials of waterproof nylon lined with wool or fleece and with a buckle belt that would release under a tug. If they were grabbed by a criminal or cop by the coat, it would come free and like the lizard losing it's tail to the bird, the homeless could shed their coat and be away.

A great read if you haven't, old school.

From OF MEN AND MOUNTAINS.

William O Douglas

"We took great pride in these packs. We did not know about ruck
sacks or pack baskets, so we never used them. Once I tried the pack
board with the forehead strap ? and once the Nelson pack. But I
found the horseshoe roll more to my liking. Each would take one-
half of a canvas pup tent which would serve as the outside cover
of the roll. Inside would be the blankets (two in each pack) and the
food. And we designed a method for carrying food that suited our
needs. We took the inside white cotton bag of a sugar sack, washed
it, and then had Mother, by stitching it lengthwise, make three bags
out of one. We d fill these long, narrow, white bags with our food
supplies. The sacks, when filled, would roll neatly up with the
blankets. Each end of the roll would be tied with rope, later to be
used for pitching the pup tent. Then the roll could be slipped over
the head onto the shoulder.

We could not pack fresh meat, not only because of its weight but
because it wouldn t keep. Canned goods, ham, and bacon were too
heavy to carry. We would, however, take along some bacon-rind for
grease. We d substitute a vial of saccharin for sugar and thus save
several pounds. Into one white sack we would put powdered milk;
into another, beans. We d fill one with flour already mixed with salt
and baking powder and ready for hot cakes or bread. In another we
would put oatmeal, cream of wheat, or corn meal. One sack would
be filled with dried fruit prunes or apples. Another would contain
packages of coffee, salt, and pepper. Usually we would take along
some powdered eggs.

On the outside of our packs would be tied a frying pan, coffee
pot, and kettle. One of us usually would strap on a revolver; the



INDIAN FLAT 25 MILES 69

other would carry a hatchet. Each would have a fishing rod and
matches. Thus equipped, each pack would weigh between 30 and
60 pounds, depending on the length of the trip planned.

We also took along a haversack which we alternated in carrying.
In it were our plates, knives, forks, spoons, lunch, and other items
we wished to keep readily available. It hung by a shoulder strap on
the hip opposite from the horseshoe pack. The one who carried it
was indeed well loaded. "

I am reminded of a quotation from a book. True story. World War II in Norway. An old man, Norwegian, rowing a rowboat against a cold wind, across a stormy sea. He was in his 70's and helping to transport a fugitive from the Nazi's.

His remark was ...

"Now they have iron ships and men of wood,
But in the old days we had wooden ships and men of iron"

:-)

Pete

Probably true to a point. We are getting "softer" as civilization advances. But taking the argument further, Nelson's "iron men" and Napoleon's Old Guard were wimps compared to someone like Hernan Cortes, who conquered the Aztec empire with just a handful of conquistadors. And neither would compare favorably to Leonidas and his 300 Spartans...

I'll be the first to agree that we're getting increasingly reliant on technology in general. Probably far too much for our own good. But idealizing the past is not the solution either. I don't think it would be a smart decision to deliberately deprive oneself of the advantages offered by new technologies, gear and materials.

Case in point, I'm sure the traditional bedroll has many uses. But realistically, I fail to see what benefits it has to offer over the more modern solutions. A modern sleeping bag provides better protection from the elements overall. As far as a means of load carrying, I'd much rather haul my gear in a proper backpack, which allows me to carry more weight more comfortably, in a more organized, easily accessible manner and in a pretty much waterproof package.

I'm sure 19th c. grunts were tough mean bastards - but if I have any choice, I'd much rather stick with a proper sleeping bag and backpack these days as opposed to the good old greatcoats and bedrolls. And I'm probably not alone here - when push comes to shove, how many of us would honestly prefer the Brown Bess musket to a modern centerfire rifle, or a flint and steel to a ferro rod (or even a butane lighter)?

I believe it's a great idea to experiment with traditional gear, simply to test its strenghts and limitations. That said, the idea of spending $300 on a bedroll makes me cringe. Looks like somebody is making a good buck there, never thought the "traditionalist" outdoors market could be so lucrative.

That mental toughness and resilience can be trained. Get out and try hard things, find your limits, push those limits. People can adapt to the difficulties they face, we just don't face as many as people used to. When "normal" is enduring very difficult situations as a matter of course, you become accustomed and do not expect it to be easy. You learn how to deal with it. If you want to learn how to be tough like the days of old, go out and do tough things, seek those types of challenges.

People haven't changed much, our environment has changed.

You make an excellent point. That iron men/wooden ships thing has been around forever and everyone knows that modern folks are panty waists compared to the real tough guys of long ago.

But how many were doing 5.15a routes or El Cap in less than a day? or running sub 4 minute miles? pushing long passages underground? etc. etc. Not many are accomplishing those feats even now, but we are cherry picking outstanding examples from the past and comparing to perceived norms of the present. I think when you compare norm to norm, or exceptional to exceptional, we do OK right now.

Cherry picking for sure.

No one is climbing trad 5.15 in klettershoes or EB's with pins or hexes.
No one is doing a first ascent of el cap in a day. Drilling the bolts alone, even with a cordless drill would take too much time.
The were records of close to 3 minute miles in the 1800's, but watches were not
as accurate nor could these be authenticated.

What we do have today is depth and specialization. Lots of people participating in formerly esoteric activities.

As Newton sarcastically said,
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

"No one is doing a first ascent of el cap in a day."

That wasn't the claim. The speed record for El Cap, off the top of my head, is somewhere around three hours, and routes on El Cap have been done free (by very exceptional climbers, to be sure)for several years, even by ladies! Equipment plays a role, but contemporary climbers train and prepare to an extent unknown in the old days.

Exploits of the past are certainly worthy of our admiration, but that doesn't mean that nothing worthy is happening today.

As far as "iron men" are concerned, the most astonishing accomplishment of old, as far as I am concerned, is this:

US troops were escorting Geronimo's band (men, women, and children - about thirty in all) back into the US after the final surrender in Mexico. Suddenly one of the women veered away from the group, heading toward a nearby creek. "What's up" asked one of the soldiers. "Wait! You'll see" was the response.

Forty-five minutes later the lady rejoined the group, carrying a new born baby.

There were some pretty tough ladies around, back then, as well...

An ultralight backpacker may disagree with that. They are reducing the weight on everything, including the backpack. If you look at their typical UL backpack - it does not provide much in terms of comfort or organization, quite contrary these features are cruelly sacrificed to the weightlessness god. A horseshoe (Rrussian "skatka") backpack would allow to reduce the backpack's dead weight practically to a zero, as a sleeping bag and/or a tarp or/and a tent can be easily rigged into a good backpack. That will definitely require some new skills polishing, and not only in the packing art, but also in an efficient carrying and using such a thing as well. That's nothing even close to the traditionalism, as all that gear is super-modern, we just organizing inert matter in a smarter way

The ultralight cult is interesting, and while it is true that some carry it to extremes, there is a lot of value for less rabid practitioners. Packs are lighter, with less padding, etc., primarily because they are carrying less. It is a feedback loop - the lighter your load, the fewer features you need in your backpack to pad and protect.

I have one such pack and it is fine for purely recreational, non-technical excursions. I have others which I carry when the job requires additional, usually relatively heavy, items.

The idea of a bedroll vs a backpack is interesting, but I wonder how the bedroll would work when scrambling in steep, rocky terrain and in dense brush, compared to a well loaded back pack...

Trying to go "ultralight" is an educational experience. You can learn what you really need, and what you can live without. I do recommend it as an experiment, though that is not what I normally choose to go camping with. I do find that I can be pretty comfortable with far less than most would consider necessary. Learning is a process, you have to try it to learn it.

The debate so far has focused on woolen blankets, bedrolls and heavy winter coats - I don't think that has a whole lot to do with ultralight backpacking. Apples to oranges...



YMMV, but you're not really going to rig a sleeping bag or tent into a *good* backpack. A bedroll slung over the shoulder horseshoe-style is a convenient, compact method for carrying stuff like tarps, blankets or clothing. Note that this was the way soldiers carried (rain)coats, blankets, shelter halves, etc., even when they were issued a backpack (knapsack/haversack). In that case, the horseshoe roll was attached to the top and sides of the backpack. But do note that the rest of gear was still carried securely inside the backpack.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1945q-450x277.jpg

As a stand-alone means of load bearing though, there are serious limitations as to what can be carried comfortably inside a makeshift bedroll "pack". Certainly no larger, bulkier items such as pots, larger cooking utensils, water containers, food, etc. Also, a bedroll is not nearly as secure as a proper backpack. Easy to lose small items without noticing. And any time you need to get something from your pack, that will mean taking apart the entire bedroll, then carefully tucking it back together before setting off again.

So where's the point? A small military surplus canvas backpack weighs nothing. Speaking of the Eastern Bloc stuff, the old Soviet veshmeshok is dirt cheap and extremely lightweight.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Soviet-Russian-A...W-/251763539549

Plenty more comparable (also better) designs out there, too. Now that I think about it, I must be an ultralight hiker myself because I prefer a shoulder bag to a rucksack for easier day trips. A lightweight canvas gas mask bag (Indiana Jones style) suits me just fine and still allows me to keep my gear organized and instantly accessible. As for my sleeping bag, I'd rather carry it stuffed safely inside the waterproof compression bag until needed...

One way or another, it's all a matter of individual preference. But if you want to go absolutely ultralight, the best way would be to dispense with that sleeping bag, bedroll, tent... altogether. It is perfectly possible to make an improvised shelter in most kinds of terrain that will keep you alive through the night. But I don't genuinely think caveman camping is for everyone... Neither is the ultralight cult.

More like a McIntosh to a Granny Smith. As the bedroll pack is a form of ultralight camping (from days gone by). The idea is to go out and use it to understand how well (or poorly) it works.

Going ultralight can teach you what is really essential. While there are some people who take ultralight camping to the extreme, most of us can learn something from it. Camping with such a bedroll is a learning experience.

Montanero, you make a lot of good points and I really enjoy reading your posts. Maybe I'm nitpicking, it's just that I'm not at all convinced a bedroll is lighter per se than a sleeping bag. More like the opposite. My go-to 3-season sleeping bag these days is nothing out of the ordinary. An older compact sized Ferrino, synthetic, weighs about one pound. With an extra liner (which weighs literally next to nothing) it's plenty good enough for temperatures below freezing. Also, the exterior is water-repellent/pretty much totally rainproof.

To achieve the same amount of comfort and protection from the elements I'd need to carry at least two good sized woolen blankets and some sort of waterproof cover, poncho, bivy bag or equivalent to keep me dry (the blanket itself isn't going to do that).

All of the above combined weighs a lot more and takes up more room than my sleeping bag (with or without the additional liner). For the amount of weight saved, I can easily afford to take along a medium sized backpack too, and I'm still carrying less weight than the improvised bedroll thingy.

Now, I do agree that old-school camping can be a lot of fun. I've spent many a night under the stars wrapped in nothing more than a woolen blanket. Most memorably back in North Africa. Those woolen blankets reeked of diesel and motor oil (no wonder, being kept in the back of a beat-up Toyota), never managed to get rid of the smell. But for "serious" outdoor expeditions, give me a decent sleeping bag instead.

Oh well, maybe I'm just getting old and soft!

See my second post in this thread. I do not advocate that wool blankets are either lighter or better than current technologies. I am saying that they work, at one time they were the historical equivalent of "ultralight" camping and that experiencing the capabilities and limitations of that type of bedroll is educational.

I have some very good down and synthetic sleeping bags, along with some very comfortable sleeping pads that I use. I am old, have broken my back and neck in the past, and have some arthritis. I like my comfort.

When I was a young paratrooper, my commander did not think we should use rucksacks as they would overload us and slow us down. I could not find a way to attach the sleeping bag to my Load Bearing Equipment, and the bedroll was the best system I could devise that I could carry and jump out of airplanes with. It kept me alive in some bad weather, but I would not claim to have slept comfortably.

I don't think so. As Montanero has noted already "the bedroll pack is a form of ultralight camping (from days gone by)".


Read above the post from clearwater, which is not about a theory, but about the real life experience. I doubt you have tried the horseshoe already (I do plan to try that soon), your gas mask/shoulder bag carrying experience does not count, as that is exactly what can be called "comparing apples and oranges".


That was just one of the many configurations of the soldier's equipment. The backpack (Eastern block veshmeshok) was never a permanent issue gear for EDC (it was issued and carried in certain set of circumstances). Also, a lot of bulky stuff (like a kettle, pot, shovel, flask, hatchet, steel helmet, gas mask bag... was carried outside of the pack or horseshoe, either attached to them or to the belt for convenience of access. The horseshoe bedroll content was used only during long breaks (2-3 times a day when on a march). Special tricks (like the one described in the clearwater's post above) were used to make packing and unpacking more efficient.


It was not a "makeshift pack", it was the military researched (at the cost of blood and lives) and approved way of carrying gear, which was included into the official soldier training program. They knew what and how to pack, how to not "lose small items without noticing", and how to carry and use it comfortably on the march and on the battlefield. By the way, it is well known that during the WWII it was even used as a bulletproof vest substitute (soldiers carried thick pieces of steel in the front of it).


Sorry, but only "Virtually nothing". Read about the UL backpacking weight numbers involved, when speaking about the UL backpacks models. The bedroll solution provides that the backpack weight is physically = 0 (zero).

This has been a fascinating discussion, so thank you all!

I haven't tried using just a bed roll, so I offer no personal experience, BUT.... from what I've seen and heard from friends and You Tube, it does seem possible that it's a practical alternative to modern backpack and sleeping bag.

Here's a video from my friend Karen showing her wool blanket roll - including water bottle, pot, cup, knife, saw, etc.... It's only a minimal kit for a day trip with her grandkids, but it looks like a pretty solid set-up to me. She has hers set up to be carried like a haversack, but I've seen other configurations as well.

Skip to 3:45 in the video to see the content of the roll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX7ENQhao-o

Dave Canterbury, as you might expect, has used this method as well, and there are a BUNCH of videos on You Tube from him and others demonstrating it.

Wise words. Try it. Learn from it. Keep what you like and ditch what you don't and remember that YMMV.

Now then, that is not a very productive, let alone polite way of having a conversation. I tend to refrain from commenting on gear, methods and techniques that I have no experience with. Maybe you should do the same. Given that you have no experience with a bedroll pack (by your own admission), why not at least give it a good try first before extolling its supposed virtues publicly?



IME a quick way of telling if somebody is an experienced outdoorsman is by the amount of gear strapped to one's belt and pack. The more stuff clipped, tied and otherwise attached to the pack externally, the better the odds that person is a greenhorn (for lack of a better word).

IME again, carrying your stuff securely inside a pack or bag of some kind means there's much less risk of losing or damaging your gear. It allows you to move faster and negotiate difficult terrain more easily. In a military setting, what does a bunch of pots and tools dangling all over the place do for noise discipline?

Anyway, I'm a hiker and outdoorsman, not a Civil War or Red Army reenactor. I'm sure Grant's army had a good reason for using bedrolls back in the day, as did the Red Army with their winter coats 70 years ago - maybe to a large extent because other/better gear was not available in the first place?

I find it curious though that the famed bedroll has all but disappeared from the armed forces in general. Backpacks are issued to the troops in every modern army that I know of. I can't recall the last time I saw someone use a bedroll in the field. Not even as a makeshift bulletproof vest. Maybe it's the quality of wool these days, I guess they just don't make it as resistant to bullets any more?

As for this ultralight stuff - now you've done it, I had to go through my gear and do a quick comparison on my kitchen scale. Metric, just to be a little more "scientific" in our approach.
Swiss army wool blanket (200x140 cm) - 2.2 kg
Ferrino 3-season sleeping bag w/ waterproof carrying bag - 0.6 kg
Sleeping bag liner - 0.1 kg
Yugoslav army canvas backpack - 0.35 kg (very compact and lightweight)
British issue gas mask bag - 0.2 kg
Austrian army 25L assault backpack - 1.3 kg (much sturdier than the Yugo assault pack)

So what does that tell us? Among other things, my sleeping bag weighs about one third of a single wool blanket. I don't have a greatcoat at hand, but the ones I've had a chance to play with must've weighed a lot more than a simple wool blanket. Probably in the range of 4 kg, maybe more (and even more if wet). So much for ultralight camping...

This is not at all to say that the bedroll concept is worthless in my book, just that it's gotten way out of hand ever since guys like Dave Canterbury began advocating the idea again - also making a good buck in the process, because they have a product to sell. Caveat emptor...

I try to keep an open mind when it comes to trying different sorts of gear. I love tradition, but at the same time I'm not buying the idea that "old" equals "good" (or even "superior") all the time. Like it or not, we have many more options available than our ancestors. Which is a good thing.

Heck, I'm sure Alexander the Great and his troops would've loved Goretex boots, 155mm howitzers and radio. In all probability, Christopher Columbus would've killed for a working GPS receiver and a quality compass (hopefully something better than a Chinese knock-off from the dollar store)... Bedrolls and greatcoats have had their day, too. Nowadays though, we have many more options to choose from, some arguably better and more practical.

YMMV (wow, I think I need to put that in my signature!)

Tom_L

Well said. Looking at old ways of doing things can be fun. It can also provide useful ideas on how we might cope, if for some reason we do not have access to our more modern gear. And in some cases, it might even be worthwhile to revive old methods using newer materials.

But as you so well put it: ".....I'm not buying the idea that "old" equals "good" (or even "superior") all the time. Like it or not, we have many more options available than our ancestors. Which is a good thing."

I'm sorry if you felt that way Tom. Perhaps, you should make a discount to my cultural and linguistic difference. I don't see anything offensive in what I have said above, simply directing you to the historic evidence provided in favor of a horseshoe type bedroll rigging versus several versions of a backpack or a shoulder bag you were using as arguments. I don't have experience with bedrolls indeed, but I clearly see the good UL potential here, which is confirmed by the history of men, not by some camping gear advertising agents.

Also, I'm still a strong believer in that our iron grandfathers had much more well forgotten by now wisdom in the ETS department than we, men of wood, could ever learn. I see you have that feeling as well, looking at the obvious excuse: (not)"all the time" So, why the bedroll is not one of them? You cannot imagine it made of a gortex hammock rain fly? Or perhaps I must know that "bedroll" in English means "thick rough wool blanket, weight = 5 kg"? Besides, I'm talking only about skatka/horseshoe method of wearing the bedroll, if that was lost in translation.

Back to your scientific arguments with numbers:


So, what you are trying to convey here mathematically? To me it looks like you are arguing that 0.6+0.1+0.35 < or = 0.6+0.1

Russian winter overcoats and blanket rolls v. modern gear? This is Twilight Zone stuff.

i know the Russian Army would fly their troops to a winter training area where the troops would spend the night in sub zero weather with just great coats and a blanket.i assume they did that to show the troops that it was possible to survive with just personal gear.note i said spend the night and not sleep the night!
this was some years ago i read about that so maybe now they have
modern winter gear and not WW2 left overs.
doing that ourselves might be a ok way to find out if it's possible,back yard first folks!!
by the way can someone tell me how to read all the responses
to the posts on one window by scrolling down the page? right now i have to open each post and i sometimes just skip everything and have my say without knowing what everyone had to say.
i did that in the past but forgot how to.....

The old methods, in my opinion, combined with modern gear, can be a lifesaver when some or all of one's gear is lost in transit. Then one must have an idea how to make do with what's left, salvaged, or found.

That's part of my interest in this subject.

"To equip a pedestrian with shelter, bedding, utensils, food, and other necessities, in a pack so light and small that he can carry it without overstrain, is really a fine art.”
-– Horace Kephart, Camping and Woodcraft, 1917

I started re-reading Horace Kephart's "Camping and Woodcraft" over the holidays. He's someone that modern traditionalist bushcrafters hold in high esteem, and try to mimic. It seems to me that he was an ulta-lighter in his day, placing great importance on balancing weight and functionality in his choice of gear. He basically said that we should look for the lightest, most useful gear we can get, while staying away from crap. He even has a chapter dedicated to the ultralight movement of his day.

I'm not sure where he'd fall in today's range of traditionalist to ultralight backpackers, but I wouldn't expect him to doggedly stick to the exact same gear he used in his glory days, as his tribe of modern day followers do. They have him frozen in time, but I expect that he'd update his choice of gear as technology advanced,and probably have a mix.



Excellent point, wildman. Lost gear or gear that's soaked...

Just tap the "My Stuff" menu closer to the top, and select "edit Preferences". I think you are looking for the "Topic Display Mode:" section there. Set it to "Flat Mode". That will display all of the messages on a single page versus the tree of replies.

When I saw the title of this thread I was going to direct you to Ken Kramm for great information. He lives near me and we've been friends for years. Next time you meet Clark and I for beers I'll invite Ken, too if you want.
-Blast

Alex...thats what i needed!!
for too long i missed out on a lot of really good info because
i had the wrong setting.
thanks.

No problem, CANOEDOGS

That would be a truly great experience to meet Ken!!!