God, I hope you're trolling...

Look bro, that's a checklist for a 72hr mission.

1. Army doesn't wear ITOVs, it was tested and the soldiers hated it. Still wear modified IBAs. That's around -14lb off your list.

2. Soldiers don't Ruck march, unless they're going to a remote zone that's difficult for vehicles to penetrate.  That's -20 to -30lb off your list.

3. Why would soldiers carry 16lb of batteries during regular patrols?

There's a reason the army attaches every brigade with a logistic unit.

You cordon the area and make a haste LZ. If needed, the wounded soldier will be dragged off the danger zone. No need for WWII tactics.

US military don't operate where they can't outfil their soldiers. 

An injured soldier will be air medivaced if serious, land medivaced if the wound is less threathning. 

Nope, first thing you do is to immediately get that injured soldier out of danger, so you need to do that in the quickest way possible. You're asking for a very specific case to happen and that is never guaranteed in the heat of battle. Unless a helicopter can quantum leap to where the injured soldier is, then the squad needs to carry him/her away from fire and that takes a lot of upper body strength since you need to not just carry the soldier, but also the person's equipment along with yours. If a woman can do all those things, awesome. If not, then she's not fit for the front lines.

The solution is simple. Stop making wars and lets make love, humanity.

First you cordon(secure) the area to ensue squad safety. This is not tagging on Gears of War.

Then you proceed to make an LZ, because there are always helis on station (air), be it Apache or Black Hawk. You gonna always have air support whenever you leave FOB (forward operating base).

Before you carry an injured soldier, after you done everything above, you take his body armor and perform first aid. You DON'T CARRY anyone, unless you're absolutely sure you won't further diminish his/her survival chances.

The women i served with were fit and strong enough for combat in the front lines. Woman can't do this and that is an attitude that should end, it's basically Gender-discrimination. Even the viking-women were warriors equal to men. This thread should be deleted right now. It's full of ignorance and hate and no mod should allow this ignorant-discrimination. Women got their own advantages that is as valuable as the advantages men have, even in war and in the front-lines, as long as the women just as the men managed to pass through the training and the test's, they have earned the rights equally with the men. The end.

I sometimes wonder how people's train of thought can be so.. illogical.

If a human being, man or woman can pass the fitness tests as they are they should be able to fight. Why is this issue made out to be more complicated than that?

Here's the thing though, standards set minimum requirements. If all the male candidates have higher scores than the females then the females should never have an opportunity. Instead, we'll have lawsuits. Female candidates will claim gender bias when passed up over and over again when their male counterparts best them and point to passing the standards as their argument. 

"Your honor, all of these women passed the fitness tests and none of them were granted the opportunity to serve in this unit. Clearly there is deep pathological sexism in the military."

Women are some of the most dangerous creatures when it comes to protecting their children and family. I have no problem with a female soldier serving and protecting me, because the only thing I am good at (I'm a man) is pulling the RB trigger