Natick Labs R & D recommended no wool layers

True, but they also have soldiers with very nasty “Shrink-Wrap” burns when wearing low melt point synthetics in crashes.

I personally think a thin wool layer is good, thicker not so much for multi-day trips.

Here’s a counterpoint to Natick’s recommendation found at
Military Quotes dot com
“CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq, April 12, 2006 – Marines conducting operations outside forward operating bases and camps in Iraq can no longer wear synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon, Marine Corps commanders have ordered.

he ban on popular clothing from companies like Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials, officials said. When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.

Whether on foot patrol or conducting a supply convoy while riding in an armored truck, everyone is at risk to such injuries while outside the wire.
“Burns can kill you and they’re horribly disfiguring. If you’re throwing (a melted synthetic material) on top of a burn, basically you have a bad burn with a bunch of plastic melting into your skin, and that’s not how you want to go home to your family,” said Welling.
“

The 7 level PCU developed for USSOCOM also has no wool in it…

Is any one aware of contemporary (post mid 80's) peer reviewed scientific research that supports the "thin wool is good" position for extremely cold weather clothing systems; burn protection excluded?

"True, but they also have soldiers with very nasty "Shrink-Wrap" burns when wearing low melt point synthetics in crashes."

That might make sense in a combat environment, but how in a backpacking environment, which is what we deal with here?

Cooking inside the tent or vestibule when it's nasty outside, perhaps?

Yeah. I forgot to factor in the Darwin coefficient.

18 pounds of synthetic clothing/insulation (perhaps boots and heltmets, too?) isn't considered cumbersome? I suppose not to a soldier.

"Is any one aware of contemporary (post mid 80's) peer reviewed scientific research that supports the "thin wool is good"

Only a subset of the mass of opinion here on BPL…

Not formally peer reviewed of course.

this "no wool" recommendation might answer some questions? Possibly durability and the ease of care could factor into this more importantly than sheer warmth? The military must provide a solution for a massive number of personnel and wool takes more consideration in care and cleaning-I assume, for me anyhow. Other factors such as cost etc.

John,

Their outlined statement tends to negate the hypothesis that wool was not recommended because of durability, ease of care, or cost.

They don't include down either. I think Natick Labs studies are great but you need to know the rationale behind the study.

Soldiers don't get to choose where they go, when they rest, or the weather. Body odor reduction and cozy feeling fabrics are probably not a significant part of the criteria. The system spans a very wide 80F degrees.

Useful, but different than most of our situations.

(Edit to spout more meaningless drivel)

x

The military is very slow to adopt new ways. It was
decades before they started using pile and polypro.
By the time they did, the rest of us had long moved on
to newer fleeces and polyester and wool undergarments
and synthetic fill insulating layers.

I have military wool pants that I love for certain
conditions. I also used to have some cotton/wool blend
army long johns that I liked for less active wear.
Both are/were extremely durable, wear like blue jeans, and
take no extra care at all.

For a time, the services did not allow synthetics (other
than aramid) because of the burn potential.
The wool clothes are much quieter than the modern ones,
but I bet are harder to print camo on.

The thrift stores
sometimes have aramid long johns.

I think the military cold weather system is so strongly
worded because there are still some of the old clothes
around and because it takes strong wording to get through
to the powers that be.

I wouldn't be surprised if they return to wool inner layers
in the next decade or two.

having both wool and cap1 base layers I have tyo say that for cross country skiing, climbing (rock or ice) snowshoeing, going for a long run, basically anywhere I am likely to work up a significant sweat I prefer a cap1/2 to equivalent wool beside my skin.
Capline simply breaths better and manages sweat better. For less aerobic activities like hiking wool is my preferred base layer because it is more comfortable – but it is more comfortable because it keeps some moisture near my skin.

So it makes sense that capline is what they recommended as a base layer – under clothing, body armor, kit, in a combat environment, it allows the solders to fight better and to stay more comfortable when working up a head of steam.
The fact that this is shifting as experience fighting in cold weather, with IEDs, is not surprising. The other reason the milatery might be recommending capline is that they work on the basis of acceptable losses – i.e. if something makes all troops fight better, but there is increased risk for some, they may take that option. They are also slower typically to adapt as an organization you or I. However it does sound like there is change afoot – but it may have more to do with IEDs then the comfort of wool.

I think one reason the military is getting away from wool is that it holds so much water and takes so long to dry when compared with synthetics. For example, a patrol in enemy territory who had to cross several chest-deep rivers, or hunker down on their bellies in a cold bog, isn't going to be able to dry their clothing over a fire, or be able to even hang it up at night. Wool's insulation isn't as good when wet, and this could make a more significant difference in hypothermia risk long-term if someone is unable to dry their clothing for days.

The ECWCS still uses wool for gloves and socks, but it's much easier to dry these small items, or to carry spares.

Dagnabbit! Them dang scientists are telling guys like me,with decades of working in cold, wet environments that what we have successfully done actually does not work.

Well, each to his own, but, having used both merino wool and most of the new synthetics in mountain snowshoe work and recreation extensively, I know which I prefer.

I no longer even own a single item of synthetic "baselayers" and will not buy any more. I have camped, alone, in temps. from -25*F to -40*F for several days at a time and in -10*F to 20*F for weeks at a time, wearing merino wool and NEVER felt cold, damp or uncomfortable. I will take Icebreaker merino over ANYTHING else for cold, damp conditions, but, I can only base this on personal experience.

"For example, a patrol in enemy territory who had to cross several chest-deep rivers, or hunker down on their bellies in a cold bog, isn't going to be able to dry their clothing over a fire, or be able to even hang it up at night. Wool's insulation isn't as good when wet, and this could make a more significant difference in hypothermia risk long-term if someone is unable to dry their clothing for days."

No kidding. +1.

And, 18 pounds for a system good to -60F in the sloppiest weather imaginable AND durable enough to be soldier-proof? Yes, that's "lightweight." Never underestimate the abilities of soldiers to break stuff. v:o)

"For example, a patrol in enemy territory who had to cross several chest-deep rivers, or hunker down on their bellies in a cold bog, isn't going to be able to dry their clothing over a fire, or be able to even hang it up at night. Wool's insulation isn't as good when wet, and this could make a more significant difference in hypothermia risk long-term if someone is unable to dry their clothing for days."

+2

The military has to consider water immersion and inability to manage perspiration. Richard's blocked quote even refers to wool's problem "after high exertion". We probably read that with a backpacking bias, where we can control our sweat by adjusting our pace and layers. But, a soldier may need to work hard and sweat without the chance to stop and remove a layer.

ECWCS Gen III

I'd guess that its strategic value is when used during conditions requiring its max potential ( ie, all 7 layers) and the enemy does not have equivalent clothing. Think Afganistan for example.

i'd guess the ecwcs gen iii is about $1000 us per man. Relative to armour, weaponry, etc – not bad. I'm sure the kill ratio is much more favorable for whose with the proper gear during a winter fight.

For those walking or working in extended cold weather – who ARE NOT in the 10th Mountain Division – I'd say wool vs synthetic is a debate more religious and less scientific.

From personal experience, yes wool takes longer to dry. But also from personal experience is the observation that this is a GOOD THING when perspiring heavily and making short rest stops. I have compared the Thorofare shirt to the BPL long sleeve top, and for short stops the Thorofare top dries too quickly and causes an almost instant chill. The wool keeps the warm moisture close to my skin longer, thus making short stops more comfortable. For longer stops, eg at the end of the day if it's cold, I change out of my hiking top into a dry sleeping top, so it's not as big a problem as it would be for military personnel stuck in a bog! In warm weather it's just not an issue at all.

praying for bad weather…

"During Operation Mountain Lion, I found myself praying for bad weather, the first time in my military career I was actually begging for a cold front to come through,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Cavoli, commander of 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment. “I knew my Soldiers could handle it and the enemy couldn't.

“ECWCS allowed my men to outlast the enemy on their own terrain. When the enemy was forced out of the mountains due to the bitter cold to take shelter, that's when we got them."

http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/postnews/blizzard/blizzard_archives/news.asp?id=8&issuedate=4-24-2008

> It appears to me that the Natick Labs research is at odds with the Merino wool winter base layer proponents.

Well, sort of. :-)

The reality is that the Natick Labs are concerned about human performance (and survival) under extreme conditions, while the proponents of the latest round of wool clothing (Icebreaker etc) are primarily concerned about sales and profit margins. The two motives are quite different.

Have a look at the full (PDF) catalogues from the new wool clothing companies and work out what percentage of the items are advertised for street and fashion wear. That will show you where they are going.

Cheers
PS: But I still wear Darn Tough Vermont wool socks – a different story.

That is true, in one sense, however, here in Canada, where REAL cold is a regular aspect of life and where we work outdoors in sub-zero temps. extensively, you will find a substantial number of people with decades of such experience who will only wear wool. Lynn Tramper mentions one major aspect of synthetics that I soon found when I first began wearing "Lifa" for snowshoeing, skiing and working in the late '70s; I have tried many different makes and styles and bought my last set of LJs in synthetic from MEC's main store just two years ago.

I wore these on an "easy" trip, an eight day horse pack into the "Chilcotin", hunting Mule Deer and Moose. It didn't get very cold, maybe only 0*F at night, yet, I NEVER felt really WARM with this on and just switched to my Smartwool medium Zip-T and MEC merino longies for the rest of that trip.

When snowshoeing in the mountains of S.E. BC, where I was born and raised, I would wear a medium merino wool "union suit", a medium sweater and this was fine down to -20*F, while moving with an average 45-60 lb. pack on my "11×60" Chestnut shoes. When, I would stop to melt snow to rehydrate, I would put on my shell and, when colder, my Egge double down duvet.

I never felt cold, could vent moisture laden air and could wear the base layer all day and night and stay warm and dry and odour-free. I find that Icebreaker does the same thing for me, but, miss the old "Mellofleece" merino "union suits" from "merrye Englande" that we all used to wear.

Based on working with the Canadian Forces Survival School in the Rockies, when I was with the Alberta Forest Service and comparing notes with their SAR techs, plus working with fellow Canadian Coast Guard people, while with them here in BC, I am inclined to think that BC loggers, in winter, work at least as hard as any military people do in respect of physical energy expended. Wrapping 1" steel ropes around 6 ft. thick logs while working in several feet of snow and at sub-zero temps on very steep mountain sides is VERY "physical" AND you do not "slack off" or you "go down rhe road", that is, get fired.

So, I am not convinced that any synthetic is "better" for strenuous activity in serious cold weather than top grade merino wool. I prefer cold weather and usually hike more in the cooler part of the year than during the heat of summer and I wear merino, Primaloft vests/jackets and eVent shells, by choice, and find these very efficient for me.

Each to his/her own and if a person finds Capiline more comfy for them, in their area and activity type/level, then that is the "best" for them. I tend to take these "scientific" evaluations as "guidelines", but, I prefer to go with what my own body tells me and merino just works so well for me that I doubt I will ever go back to synthetics…but, who knows what "wonder fabrics" may appear in the future…… :)

Dewey-

I didn't mean to suggest that synthetics were better than wool for high exertion. As your logger example shows, wool can be fine when working hard in cold weather.

But, the logger can layer appropriately for his conditions and exertion level, and if he falls in a lake can rewarm in a vehicle.

A soldier may not have the luxury of taking off layers when working hard — imagine standing guard all bundled up, then coming under fire. Are you gonna stop and de-layer to minimize moisture buildup in your clothing?

Also, as mentioned by other posters, the soldier's clothing system needs to withstand total immersion in water followed by field drying. Here, I think the edge unquestionably goes to synthetics.

Wool's ability to buffer evaporative cooling by absorbing moisture makes it a nice material…up until the point that it becomes saturated, either through immersion in water or through over-layering under sustained exertion.