Physiological, Biomechanical, and Maximal Performance Comparisons of Soldiers Carrying Loads Using U.S. Marine Corps Modular Lightweight Load- Carrying Equipment (MOLLE), and U.S. Army Modular Load System (MLS) Prototypes

摘要

Tests on eleven male soldiers carrying 'fighting', 'approach', and 'sustainment' loads showed that prototype U.S. Marine Corps Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE), and prototype U.S. Army Modular Load System (MLS) did not differ as to: energy cost or maximal speed of load-carriage; the speed at which a walking soldier could get prone and return to a standing position; the speed at which a walking soldier could get prone, roll three times and aim the weapon; peak and average ground reaction braking force; knee range of motion; or effect on marksmanship. The MOLLE bested the MLS in: the operability of its quick-release mechanism; shoulder, hip and total-body comfort; maintenance of upright walking posture; minimization of front-back trunk sway and vertical bobbing; minimization of lateral foot forces; and subjective ratings by soldiers. The MLS bested the MOLLE in: minimization of heel-strike and toe push-off forces; speed on the obstacle course; effect on grenade throwing; and average shoulder strap pressure. Though superior, the MOLLE's quick-release system could be easier to find and reach. With both the MOLLE and MLS, when body armor was worn, the waist-belt could not be cinched tightly enough to transfer much weight from the shoulders to the hips. The Interceptor armor used with the MOLLE was particularly loose around the waist. A durability problem with the test MOLLE pack frames appears to have been solved by improved, full-production manufacturing methods.