This is so interesting. Any thought on the cultural norms driving so much gear to be individual? Personal gear could be common gear instead, with perhaps a cost to hygiene and individual sensitivities. Combat gear (partially) as well, especially for non-combat roles. And being the designated carrier in a two-man team, that's cultural for sure.
"one man one kit" you own your gear and are responsible for maintaining it, knowing exactly where it is at any moment, and if it fails because you didn't take care of it, it's your fault. Plus, reduces cognitive load when you know your kit like the back of your hand, in stressful situations. It's your kit and you don't lend it to others, also. Otherwise you compromise your safety.
There's an RAF anecdote related to this in Most Secret War, in which the officer asserts that his unit is more effective than other similar units because it still assigns each specific crew to a specific plane, and so knowing "their" plane they are willing to fly it despite minor problems that in other units would cause it be taken out of service for repair.
I don't have the book with me, maybe somebody else will remember and dig out the quote.
> Any thought on the cultural norms driving so much gear to be individual?
Fecal gravity. A lot times it could be fixed with better logistics, but the people making the decisions are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of those decisions.
The "moms of America" don't like it when their kids die. So a huge percentage of the weight carried is bulky, heavy armor. Some of the other gear is necessary, and some of it you just carry because a guy with more rank than you thinks you might need it, or because he doesn't want to be responsible for you not having it when the need comes up.
I think the primary social factors driving this issue through history is that this gear is not something you easily produce yourself (cost), supporting factors dictate the mission (enablers), and rapid portability is the driving force behind everything.
