On a chilly afternoon in early August of 1959, the United States Army showcased what they proclaimed to be their “ultimate weapon”—not a new type of bomb, nor an advanced tank or combat vehicle, but rather a lone soldier equipped in combat gear reflective of the Atomic Age.
That soldier was Sergeant First Class Ben Sawicki, who, for a brief moment, embodied the Army’s conception of the “soldier of tomorrow”—a future warrior who, as military strategists remarked to Life magazine, may look so unusual that he could frighten the enemy without firing a shot.
Presenting himself before military and defense leaders, along with a few intrigued civilian onlookers at an Association of the US Army event in Washington, DC, Sawicki appeared as a “spooky” figure. His face concealed beneath a substantial “plastic laminate” helmet with infrared binoculars for night vision and a two-way radio for quick communication, his entire body was enveloped in a camouflage “layered nylon armor,” said to be capable of resisting not only small arms fire but also the impact of a nuclear explosion, according to Army representatives who reported to The New York Times.
Equipped with a 7.62-mm M14 battle rifle (with plans in place for a lighter standard-issue firearm in the future), his extraordinary gear featured unusual elements like a bandolier of explosive charges for digging foxholes and a “jump belt” jetpack designed to allow him to leap across the battlefield with 30-foot bounds. With improved survivability, mobility, and lethality, he was “truly representative of the fighting man in the 1965 era,” as detailed in a contemporaneous article in the service’s Armor magazine, ready for any challenges America’s adversaries might present on the nuclear battlefield.
“With this outfit, I could take on 10 soldiers with ordinary equipment and kill ’em all,” Sawicki colorfully told LIFE.
Of course, the Army’s “GI of the future,” which was revealed over sixty years ago, didn’t quite turn out to be the all-encompassing vision of the future as imagined. However, certain aspects of the soldier’s ambitious kit did anticipate innovations that would later be adopted by American combat personnel. Here’s an overview of what the 1959 “soldier of tomorrow” got right (and wrong) regarding the evolution of warfare.
The US military had utilized the M1 combat helmet since entering World War II. Sawicki’s helmet distinguished itself not only due to the use of advanced materials but also because of its departure from the traditional “steel pot” design, featuring slight molding over the ears, and its comprehensive communications system, equipped with a mounted two-way radio.
Indeed, Sawicki’s helmet laid the groundwork for future advancements. The Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) helmet, introduced in the early 1980s to replace the M1, included enhanced ballistic protection around the ears. Its successor, the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet (MICH), was specifically created for integration with modern tactical headsets. Both the PASGT and MICH utilized ballistic Kevlar fiber, which is likely superior to the unspecified “laminate” mentioned during Sawicki’s helmet debut, yet the design innovations from 1959 are still evident.
The Army has been testing various design features in recent years. Take, for instance, the relatively new Enhanced Combat Helmet, developed in partnership with the Marine Corps to succeed the MICH-based Advanced Combat Helmet. This innovative helmet is made from thermoplastic instead of the traditional Kevlar fiber and is mainly offered in a “high cut” tactical style, which minimizes ear coverage. Interestingly, the upcoming Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS) seems to be the closest model that incorporates many unique design elements of Sawicki’s helmet. It is constructed from lightweight polyethylene and includes integrated rails to facilitate the seamless add-on of communication equipment and night-vision devices. The IHPS even offers an optional motorcycle-style “mandible” and eye shield for extra facial protection—moving closer to the distinctive “permanent smile” that surprised viewers in Washington decades ago, as contemporary newsreels described it.
Although the Pentagon had deployed night-vision optics since World War II, including the so-called sniperscope that depended on actively illuminating targets with infrared light, Sawicki’s helmet-mounted “infrared binoculars” envisioned a transition toward “passive” helmet-mounted devices to assist soldiers in navigating darkness. The first significant passive night-vision optic emerged during the Vietnam War when the Army deployed the weapon-mounted AN/PVS-2 “Starlight Scope” for soldiers operating in low-light jungle environments (though it performed better in moonlight than complete darkness). It was not until the 1970s that the military introduced its first pair of helmet-mounted night-vision goggles, the AN/PVS-5, setting the US military on a path to “own the night” with unmatched technological advantage in subsequent decades.
In today’s context, enhancing a soldier’s situational awareness spans far beyond just nighttime combat readiness. The latest night-vision system issued by the Army, dubbed the AN/PSQ-42 Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular (ENVG-B), not only provides service members with infrared and thermal vision capabilities but can integrate visual feeds from a specific weapon optic known as the Family of Weapon Sights, enhancing their ability to survey the battlefield while remaining shielded from enemy fire.
Additionally, there is the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), the Army’s avant-garde “smart” goggles. Currently based on a ruggedized variant of the Microsoft HoloLens 2, the IVAS serves as both night-vision goggles and a cutting-edge heads-up display, capable of incorporating sensor data into a soldier’s view. The Army has been exploring helmet-mounted displays for decades as part of various “future warrior” initiatives, and the IVAS has encountered its share of setbacks—particularly soldier reports of “mission-affecting physical impairments” such as headaches, nausea, and discomfort during extended use. Moreover, the future of the long-awaited headset now appears uncertain: As noted by Breaking Defense, the Army might consider returning to the drawing board to find a new primary contractor for the advanced system in its IVAS Next endeavor following an audit of existing night vision goggle capabilities. Nevertheless, with the ENVG-B and IVAS, helmet-mounted night vision technology has advanced far beyond what Sawicki’s chain of command could have ever envisioned.
The combination of a bulletproof vest and camouflage suit that Sawicki wore for his debut at AUSA, mentioned in various publications as “layered nylon armor” and “layered nylon vest,” closely resembles the modern personal protective equipment utilized by the Army, rather than the flak jackets used by soldiers in Vietnam. Currently being developed, the Soldier Protection System (SPS) provides contemporary soldiers with a “lightweight modular, scalable and tailorable suite of protective equipment,” according to the Army’s description. Essentially, this means the protective gear consists of several components designed to enhance soldier survivability while maintaining mobility; concerning body armor, this primarily involves the soft armor Torso and Extremity Protection subsystem along with the hard armor Vital Torso Protection subsystem, which utilizes reinforced ceramic plates to improve ballistic protection against small arms fire.
While safeguarding soldiers against bullets is vital, protecting them from the aftermath of nuclear explosions is an entirely different challenge, as Army leaders informed The New York Times regarding Sawicki’s suit. The old Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) outfit has long been in place, offering protection to U.S. service members against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats for years; however, it remains an entirely separate gear system rather than a part of the SPS or the standard-issue Army Combat Uniform. Although the design from 1959 specified specially crafted “‘welded’ combat boots” and “molded plastic gloves” for protection in irradiated conditions, modern soldiers regretfully must enter battle equipped only with their Army Regulation 670-1-authorized boots and tactical gloves, alongside their MOPP kit. Of course, if nuclear warfare does commence, survival for combat on the ground will likely become irrelevant.
Despite the 1959 “soldier of tomorrow” being depicted with an M14, advancements in firearm technology have rendered this once-popular battle rifle outdated. The Army began replacing the M14 with the more portable 5.56-mm M16 assault rifle in the late 1960s, which was eventually substituted by the shorter M4 carbine during the Global War on Terror in the 2000s. The process of replacing the M16 and M4 rifles has proven challenging over the years, but it can be said that the declarations made by Army officials in 1959 regarding a lighter standard-issue rifle for soldiers have largely materialized, even if the newly adopted XM7 rifle, part of the service’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, is in fact noticeably heavier than the M4.
The promise of “new high-velocity bullets” has likewise come to fruition. In the early 2000s, the Army adopted the 5.56-mm M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round to enhance performance over the standard M855 ammo that had been in service since the 1980s, while the Army commenced a significant small arms study in 2017 to assess whether soldiers required a different caliber ammunition to address the growing use of body armor by enemies. The study concluded that the Army’s forthcoming rifle should be chambered in 6.8 mm, which would theoretically provide vastly improved performance at range when compared to both 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm rounds. Consequently, the Army chose Sig Sauer as the producer for its two 6.8mm NGSW systems in 2022, and these weapons saw official deployment earlier this year. It may have taken decades, but the Army’s new high-velocity round has finally arrived.
While some features of Sawicki’s combat equipment have found echoes in contemporary military advancements, others have sadly remained only as ideas. For instance, the automatic foxhole-digging charges never came to pass as a suitable substitute for the cherished handheld entrenching tool, despite their widespread interest amongst military forward-thinkers during that era. However, one vision that continues to captivate military and defense discussions is that of troops equipped with jetpacks.
The Defense Department has been exploring the concept of militarized jetpacks for decades. This journey started with research and development in the 1950s, peaking in October 1961 when Bell Aerosystems successfully demonstrated the Small Rocket Lift Device (commonly known as the “Bell Rocket Belt”) for President John F. Kennedy at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Although the Army ultimately decided to halt development of the Rocket Belt due to fuel restrictions that limited its practical use in the field, military strategists would revisit the idea repeatedly in the following years.
Regrettably, the age of the American jetpack seems to be fading away: The Pentagon has shifted its focus from jetpack aspirations towards a more sophisticated individual lift approach through powered paragliders. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Portable Personal Air Mobility System is currently trialing lightweight one-man flight systems, while the Army recently issued a request for its similarly named Personnel Air Mobility System to develop a motorized paraglider for paratroopers. This initiative aims to “reduce reliance on traditional aircraft platforms and enhance the range achievable through standard parachute infiltration methods,” according to the service. The plan includes training individual service members in flying, but it is unlikely that jetpacks will feature in the near future.
Sixty-five years after Sawicki introduced the Army’s next-generation combat gear, the “soldier of tomorrow” might actually resemble this:
As the US military prepares for the next major conflict, the standard equipment of the average soldier is set to advance, transitioning from lighter and more adaptable anti-tank munitions to unmanned aerial vehicles and various battlefield robots that will support troops in increasingly intricate and unpredictable combat zones. Recently, the Army introduced a new fielding initiative called “transformation in contact,” which aims to deploy soldiers globally with innovative weaponry and training, allowing them to provide direct feedback to leaders on how to create the future military force. While the Pentagon’s complicated procurement processes may hinder progress somewhat (just inquire about the Army’s attempts to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle over the last twenty years), the service seems better equipped than ever to quickly furnish individual soldiers with the necessary tools for upcoming conflicts.
While Sawicki may not represent the “ultimate weapon” for deployment around the globe, the 1959 vision of the “GI of the future” accurately foresaw several aspects of the evolving American soldier. However, apart from the depiction of foxhole-digging soldiers and those wearing jetpacks, its major miscalculation was underestimating the role of nuclear fallout on the battlefield. Here’s to hoping that remains a misconception.