In Part 2 we talked about modifications to the ALICE pack itself. In Part 3, I’ll focus on ALICE Frame and Suspension Upgrade options. It is fair to say that the weakest link of the ALICE pack system was the issue suspension system and the tubular aluminum frame. The LC-1 version of the frame was especially prone to breakage and Supply Sergeants had to keep a steady supply on hand for replacements. Especially in Airborne units where a number would be expected to be non-mission capable after each and every jump. The LC-2 version was reinforced and was indeed somewhat more durable but only to a point.

Arguably it wasn’t so much a flaw in the concept or the design but rather in the execution. It was the result of a deliberate compromise between strength, light weight and low cost. A couple of companies like Tactical Tailor and TAG make heavier duty metal frames for ALICE and ALICE clones. Both are welded rather than riveted like the issue frame. I have handled both and they do seem more robust and I have heard good things about them. However, as far as I know no Service has done any evaluations or issued any for rigorous troop testing. Nor have I used one personally. But if you prefer a metal frame to the newer non-metal versions then these would appear to be a significant improvement over the issue frame in terms of strength.

The search for a new frame for the ALICE packs goes way back. At least to the early 80s. Initiated not by the Army but rather by soldiers. The first candidate was the commercial Coleman pack frame. Individuals, myself included, experimented with using this frame in two ways. Some kept the frame intact. Instead modifying the ALICE pack itself with web tabs and grommets so that it could be attached to the frame just like the civilian Coleman backpacks. More of us actually cut the frame down with a hot knife so that it could be inserted into the envelope pad of the ALICE. This also reduced the length of the frame so that it was approximately the size of the issue frame. I used this cut down version for a couple of years. It was a little more comfortable than the GI frame. But it also tended to flex too much for my satisfaction when under load. So the search continued for a suitable replacement.

Other options were scarce for a long time. The Services began concentrating on internal frame designs like the CFP 90 in the late 80s. The tactical industry was quite small in those days. Some companies like Eagle made packs that utilized the ALICE frame but none were making modernized frames. And that didn’t change until the MOLLE System was developed in the late 90s. Some might not realize that, among other things, MOLLE was the last pack system that the USMC and the Army adopted concurrently. It also signaled at least a partial return to the external frame design. Although SOCOM’s SPEAR system was initially fielded about the same time. The first MOLLE pack frame had a ball and socket contraption that integrated the vest component to the pack component. That awkward innovation didn’t last long. MOLLE I was not well liked. And soldiers said so loudly in the AARs from the early engagements in Afghanistan in 2001-2. And the same was true of the SPEAR pack as well.

The initial reviews were so bad that shortly afterwards the USMC went a different way and tried the internal frame option one more time with the ILBE. The Army chose instead to issue a modified MOLLE II suite and has continued to update the base system ever since. The USMC eventually decided on an alternate external frame design called FILBE. MOLLE II now uses the DEI “GEN 4” 1603 frame and the FILBE uses their 1606 MC frame. I have a little personal history with the 1606 frame development. I was never issued the MOLLE rucksack but I did borrow one for a couple of days in early 2008 just out of curiosity. I immediately disliked the 1603 frame. I’m not a small guy but the frame was a little too wide to be comfortable for me and interfered with the natural movement of my arms. But I did like the concept and wondered if they had – or would be interested in producing – a smaller version. So I looked up the company and found they had just developed the 1606 which at the time came with a “hammerhead” rather than square top configuration. I asked if it would work on the ALICE? In response they sent me a sample. I think it was the only free piece of kit I ever received that I didn’t get from the government.

The hammerhead would not fit into the ALICE envelop pad. So I cut off and sanded smooth the ends so that it would fit. I provided a write up and some photos back to DEI explaining that if they squared off the head and made it compatible with ALICE and clones there would be a market IMO. They thanked me but said no thanks because they were concentrating on proprietary packs for the 1606 project and would continue in that direction. I kept using the 1606 I had modified and liked it a lot. Two years passed and I guess I wasn’t the only one that told DEI they were missing an opportunity. Because they started producing their 1606 AC (ALICE Compatible) version as well as the hammerhead 1606. Eventually they stopped production of the hammerhead all together. And, as they say, the rest is history. The 1606 was selected by the USMC for the FILBE and now for the Army’s Airborne 4000 pack as well as other commercial packs. The 1606 even works quite well on the Large MOLLE (top right). And of course the 1606 can be retrofitted to any ALICE or clone. If you still run one of those packs I would suggest the 1606 is well worth checking out.

After market shoulder straps or separate comfort pad sets started being produced and purchased by soldiers soon after the ALICE was fielded. The Army itself issued at least 3 different strap sets. The LC1 version had thin padding and only one quick release on the left strap. The LC2 had a thicker but shorter padded portion and dual quick releases. And finally, OD and woodland strap sets were produced that had better padding that extended the full length of the strap. However, inexplicably, that third set did not have sewn in attaching straps like its predecessors. A separate 1” strap was routed through a web bar on the shoulder strap to connect the padded portion to the ALICE frame. This arrangement was not an improvement. But that shoulder strap version did come with a sternum strap for the first time. Sternum straps are simple and very useful additions to any pack’s suspension and are ubiquitous on packs of any size today. Back then they were common on many of the after market strap sets or were fabricated by soldiers themselves for their ALICE packs.

HSGI used to produce what they called the Alipad (top center) and LBT still has a similar integrated suspension padding upgrade. I did not use the Alipad while on active duty because I liked having some open space between my back and the pack frame for ventilation. However, I have used it quite a bit in the last few years and have become more of a fan. Because it is a one piece design the Alipad “ties in” the suspension without adding too much bulk. In my experience there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to added padding. Usually wider is better than thicker on the shoulders and lower back. However, this is an area when individuals definitely need to experiment themselves to find out what is right for them. One solution will not be right for all.

I’ll close by repeating some things I have already said. A “combat ruck” is any rucksack you have on your back when the shooting starts. A GOOD combat ruck is one that not only helps you carry the load but doesn’t make it harder for you to survive that encounter with the enemy. I again assure everyone that I am not, nor have I ever been, enamored with ALICE as issued. I have spent decades trying to improve ALICE for my own personal benefit if for nothing else. And I have eagerly tried every new wonder-pack that has come along in all those years. Always looking for something appreciably better for the direct combat role than ALICE. And I haven’t run into it yet.

Because despite its well cataloged shortcomings, I do believe the Large ALICE still represents the soundest design for a combat rucksack in terms of basic geometry. It does need modifications and modernization especially the frame and suspension as discussed in these last two articles. And I also believe that the Army would have been better served in the 80s if it had done what it has done with MOLLE. Concentrating on upgrading rather than fixating on replacing ALICE. CFP 90, SPEAR, ILBE and the other “better” packs didn’t fail because people were nostalgic or Luddites. Those packs failed because they weren’t really well suited to the mission. Much as the M16 has evolved over time into the M4 and countless individualized AR platforms. I would submit that ALICE is still a solid foundation or worthy template from which to build a truly better combat rucksack.

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.

Next: Cargo shelves and Pack Boards.

Last time I talked about how functional a combat patrolling rucksack the Large ALICE pack was as issued. But at the same time it also certainly falls well short of being my idea of the perfect solution. So I’m going to cover some of the most common and useful tweaks, tune ups and upgrades that can be applied to make the pack itself better. I am limited in my visual aids for this portion since my personal ALICE packs only have a small number of bag modifications. Over the years I had experimented with some of the other options but I settled on those which were most useful for my needs and mission. This is definitely an area in which personal preference and your mission parameters will drive your decisions. If you live near a larger Military base there will likely be local sew shops that can do a professional grade job for you. Right now I think Tactical Tailor is the only place that provides Nation-wide mail in sewing service.

I’m going to start with two additions that are probably the most universally useful. The first is the mounting of fastex buckles on the exterior pockets and the two long cinch straps. This is also probably the most common upgrade and makes getting in and out of the pack much easier. Not expensive and well worth the money. The Army probably would have put fastex on ALICE by the 90s if the emphasis had not been on replacing it with a new system. Instead we continued to purchase the metal buckle version until the contract eventually lapsed. The second addition is a carrying handle. Without a carrying handle people tend to grab the ALICE by the envelop pad and rip it loose. We used to fabricate handles out of 550 cord or better yet 1” tubular nylon and attach it to the top of the frame. Later those sew shops I mentioned stated putting even better webbing handles directly onto the bag itself for their customers. With ALICE, the one handle on top got the job dome. The Large MOLLE II also has a sewn in handle and the USMC’s FILBE even comes with handles on the sides as well.

Let’s talk about pockets. There are a number of high quality ALICE clones that come with 8-10-12 pocket options. Or you can have that many sewn onto your USGI ALICE pack. If you need that many pockets I say go for it. But if you want more pockets because you “want to carry more stuff”, I’d say think again. I would recommend adding only enough pockets to move critical or frequent use items from the interior to the exterior of your pack. I eventually settled on a total of five pockets. Two claymore pockets, one on the back and one on top as shown. A small pocket on top that I kept a survival kit in and two long hydration pockets which I had sewn on the inside on either side of the bag. It behooves you to keep the profile of your pack – any pack – in all dimensions as small as you can manage. And it is especially desirable if at all possible not to expand the flanks of the pack out much wider than your shoulders.

Sleeping bag extensions are a fairly popular option. I haven’t seen the need myself but then again I have not been working in extremely frigid environments for many years. A light bag and a bivy have been enough for my needs and didn’t take up enough space to justify the extension. However, if you expect or need to carry the full military sleep system or civilian equivalent then it would be worth it. And much better than strapping your sleeping bag underneath the pack. Or burying your sleeping gear at the bottom of the pack so that you have to unload everything to get to it. As readers may recall, the first generation of MOLLE was actually a two part system with main pack and a separate sleeping system carrier that could be strapped underneath. The MOLLE II combined the two and has a crescent shaped zippered opening on the bottom quarter for separate access to a sleeping bag. The FILBE has a similar arrangement.

Adding straps to secure 2-Quart Canteens and E-Tools to the sides of the ALICE (or MOLLE for that matter) is also helpful. I used these for many years and recommend them if you are routinely carrying those items. Besides providing additional security these straps keep the items from flopping around when moving. While I was in the infantry I used one of each. In Special Forces it was two of the 2-Quarts since I had much less use for an E-tool. Then eventually I transitioned to Camelbaks carried inside as I already mentioned. PALS webbing or panels are not as common a modification. But they are something that Tactical Tailor offers for the sides of the ALICE or their MALICE version. This will allow you to add MOLLE type pouches to the outside of the pack. As with the directly sewn on pockets I would caution anyone not to add pockets that are not essential for your mission.

Storm collars are common on most top loading rucksacks today, even the smallest. It is a useful modification to consider applying to your ALICE. All of the long packs I spoke of in Part 1 had storm collars. Oddly, the Large MOLLE I & II did not initially come with one. However, the latest version of MOLLE does now have a storm collar as does FILBE. Side compression straps are also common on most packs today whether side or top loaders. However, this has not been a very popular modification for ALICE packs. Partly because you can compress the ALICE down pretty small with the main pack straps. And perhaps also because many people chose to add pockets on the sides instead. MOLLE II had 2 compression straps per side but now comes with 3 per side. FILBE has 2 per side.

RTO zippers are an excellent mission enhancing alteration for any RTO or anyone carrying a larger radio. I tried it myself on one of my packs years ago. Not because I was performing RTO duties, but because I wanted quick access to the radio pouch inside. I used to keep star clusters, parachute flares and smoke grenades in there. That worked pretty well. Later, I added the claymore pouch on top and moved my pyrotechnics there. And that worked even better. As with storm collars, MOLLE did not have RTO zippers until the latest iteration was fielded. FILBR also has a zipper. Likewise, the addition of antenna or hydration tube ports has gained in popularity over the years. Primarily because more and more people started to carry hydration bladders in their packs as well as considerably more electronic gear. A note of caution here. As I mentioned earlier I settled on only a handful of the options that I considered mission enhancing. If you think you need to apply most or ALL of these adjustments to get the pack you want. Then I would say the USGI ALICE is not the rucksack you need to be spending your money on. Look at commercial clones or other quality manufacturer’s products instead.

Piggyback assault packs. For many years I have used the Patrol Pack from the CFP 90 (top left) as what I always called my “actions on the objective pack”. Not to carry more of my stuff. Rather, I used it to collect what we now call SSE material off an objective or prisoner. Otherwise it remained mostly empty but there if I needed it. It was common in the 90s and early 2000s for SFQC candidates to carry a variety of small after-market packs on top of their ALICE for similar purposes. I guess that is considered outdated TTP now. The SPEAR pack came with what could only be described as a full-fledged 3-Day pack that was supposed to ride on the back of the main pack. MOLLE II came with a somewhat more reasonably sized Assault Pack. The problem is that today each of these small(er) packs are usually filled to capacity. And are always additive to the weight and bulk of the main pack’s load.

Load planning and load discipline may need to be a separate topic for another day but I will touch on it now. There was a time when we didn’t have so many options and we organized our gear in three discrete echelons. The fighting load which involved only two ammo pouches for magazines and grenades, two canteens and maybe a buttpack with poncho and a meal. In the rucksack was the existence load which was mission essential gear: comms, ammo, water and some environmental clothing (wet weather and / or cold weather) and minimum sleep gear. Items “common to all” as we used to say. Everything else went into the duffel bag or kit bag to be delivered later because those items were NOT mission essential. I know that is an old school SOP and even then was violated on a regular basis. But the fact is we’ve long ago lost sight of load planning fundamentals. Now, everything and the kitchen sink has migrated onto the soldiers’ backs. Just in case. We’ve added the significant weight of body armor and we’ve removed nothing. And instead of addressing the problem we keep making the packs bigger! There is no commonsense in that and no sound tactical reason to allow that to happen.

I have included a fairly famous photo of a hard charging paratrooper from the 173d ABCT after the jump on an airfield not far from Irbil in Northern Iraq. Note that he is heavily overburdened. The irony is there was no compelling need for his leaders to load him up that way. He jumped onto an airfield already secured by Kurdish Peshmerga and US Special Forces. An airfield where US aircraft had already been airlanding in the nights prior. An airfield that additional US aircraft continued to utilize almost immediately after the jump, exactly as planned. So why did this soldier’s chain of command think he needed to carry all of this stuff on his back during the initial insertion? I don’t know. But I will tell you it is just one example of bad load planning and failed load discipline that was a daily occurrence for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we damn well know better. We just can’t seem to muster the collective will to reverse this trend and actually manage the soldiers load. In the end, it’s not about what style of pack we issue, it is about leadership.

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.

Next: Part 3, ALICE Frame and Suspension Upgrades and Replacements.