The old soldiers pre 1900 must have been huge or weight lifters in their spare time
- Thread starter griaguns
- Start date
- Location
- Central AB
And yet the men were actually much smaller than todays average. I visited the Amerian Civil War museum in New Orleans. After noting how small all the uniforms were, the curator commented that the average soldier was 5'5", and 135lbs. So they must have been pretty tough.
Apparently the knights were quite small in stature yet they wore full amour and yielded large swords.
The astronaut suits at the Houston space museum are interesting. The early guys were quite small. Smaller than me, which says a lot LOL.
M
The astronaut suits at the Houston space museum are interesting. The early guys were quite small. Smaller than me, which says a lot LOL.
M
My great grand father was in the militia cavalry in the 1890s and the family story was that he shot the Snider "carbeens" for other troopers at the annual target practice because they did not like the recoil. Maybe they all the old timers were not so tough.
Very interesting observation, however I do think the total weight of what they have to carry has gone up.
The old soldiers pre 1900 must have been huge or weight lifters in their spare time
Canadian FN C1A1. Issued until 1984 if I remember my history right.
- Weight, Normal butt, full 20 rd magazine: 10 lb. 15 oz.
Last edited:
Those where the days when men were men
As I understand it, Russian armoured vehicles were made small to conserve material and present a smaller target. They just picked their smallest soldiers to train as tank crew. Easy enough to do when you have millions of recruits to choose from. I wonder if NASA had the same idea.
Gunners picked for the belly turrets on American B17's and B-24's were picked from smaller sized recruits. Even normal size folks would not fit in those turrets.
I was over in Britain and Scotland a few years back and saw a few military museums. The uniforms on display even up into WWi looked like something today's SMALLER 14 to 15 year old boys would wear. The whole move to taller folks didn't take place until relatively recent times.
This details a British Sargeants and rifleman load in 1809..about 80 lbs.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Britain/Infantry/Rifles/c_rifles.html
In or on the knapsack:
Two shirts
Two pairs of stockings
One pair of shoes
Extra pair of soles and heels for the shoes
Pair of trousers
Greatcoat
Blanket
3 Brushes
Box of blacking
Razor
Soap box and strap
Mess tin, center tin, and lid
Three brushes
Other equipment:
Powder flask
Ball bag containing 30 loose balls
Small wooden mallet to force balls into rifle
Belt and ammo pouch which held 50 rounds of ammunition
Sword belt
Rifle
Haversack
Canteen
Plus at times other squad gear to hand out as needed.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Britain/Infantry/Rifles/c_rifles.html
In or on the knapsack:
Two shirts
Two pairs of stockings
One pair of shoes
Extra pair of soles and heels for the shoes
Pair of trousers
Greatcoat
Blanket
3 Brushes
Box of blacking
Razor
Soap box and strap
Mess tin, center tin, and lid
Three brushes
Other equipment:
Powder flask
Ball bag containing 30 loose balls
Small wooden mallet to force balls into rifle
Belt and ammo pouch which held 50 rounds of ammunition
Sword belt
Rifle
Haversack
Canteen
Plus at times other squad gear to hand out as needed.
That is fair to say but your starting comment won't get any sympathy from any military person. Stonehorse proves my point with the FAL
Even the C7 is 8.6lbs loaded. Then add that ####ty 2lbs elcan scope and it gets heavy after awhile too. It does not seem that bad because of the design though. IE not 5 feet long like the martini you are talking about
Chuckbuster
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I toured a B-17 last summer. At 6'1'' and a buck ninety five in weight, I can tell you the old bombers were not made for big men. I could barely fit through hatches and was hunched over most of the time. My friend who is quite a bit smaller was informed that he was the typical size for air crew and would have been a good candidate for a ball turret gunner.
Tough was from environment. Size was from food. Even today you can spot the aristocrats in Europe by greater size and build: generations of better food.
As for prior genarations tougher: I visited some old mining towns in Colorado. Bunk house was two inches of pine, with tar paper between. Seven to eight months snowed in place, with temps of -60° and 100mph winds. Altitude 10000ft plus. Yeh. Tough.
As for prior genarations tougher: I visited some old mining towns in Colorado. Bunk house was two inches of pine, with tar paper between. Seven to eight months snowed in place, with temps of -60° and 100mph winds. Altitude 10000ft plus. Yeh. Tough.
Damn! That's my height and weight. I must be one tough little mother .....er. Been thus height and weight since I left Regular Army thanks to diet and exercise.
I noticed the smallness of suits of armour in European museums as well the the beds. People today are larger generally due to diet and better health overall. Except asa society, we are eating ourselves into diabetes, obesity and heart disease with our high standard of living and couch potato lifestyles.
Like that old saying goes it s not about the size of the dog in the fight it s about the size of the fight in the dog
For example little arch clement confederate bushwhacker and all around psyopath when fatally shot lying on his back was trying to #### his cap and ball revolver with his teeth rather than give up
For example little arch clement confederate bushwhacker and all around psyopath when fatally shot lying on his back was trying to #### his cap and ball revolver with his teeth rather than give up
Last edited:
300Spartans
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Canada of course
Midget wrestlers had it tougher back then too.
