Light infantry foot mobility standards?

With my interest in the protohistoric and Contact periods in eastern North America I often consult primary documents whose authors use “a day’s travel” as the primary unit of measure. As far as I can tell scholars have no agreed upon benchmark for a typical day’s pedestrian travel. Replies to individual inquiries I have made tend to be in the range of fifteen to thirty miles (fifteen seems overly modest to me and thirty seems brisk but realistic). Just curious as to whether any formal—as in “written down somewhere”—expectation exists of what sort of distance a day’s worth of foot-borne travel for a contemporary light infantryman on a training exercise would entail, as well as what sort of load he would be expected to bear? (I realize there are a number of other variables that could be factored in, but I am thinking of movement undertaken over fairly flat terrain in non-inclement weather.) Even if no formal expectations exist I am also of course interested in learning whatever anyone cares to share regarding the de facto standard.

My thanks in advance,
MTB

I'm on the road for the next couple of weeks so don't have access to the library but for a down under perspectrive, I think the old Manual of Land Warfare (MLW) The Rifle Platoon or The Rifle Company had tables for infantry movement across a variety of terrain types.

Uncontested movement over relatively flat or undulating firm ground with no signification foliage obstacles would probably be midway in that 15-30 mile range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

Just curious as to whether any formal—as in “written down somewhere”—expectation exists of what sort of distance a day’s worth of foot-borne travel for a contemporary light infantryman on a training exercise would entail, as well as what sort of load he would be expected to bear? (I realize there are a number of other variables that could be factored in, but I am thinking of movement undertaken over fairly flat terrain in non-inclement weather.) Even if no formal expectations exist I am also of course interested in learning whatever anyone cares to share regarding the de facto standard.

---

I'll dig around and see if I can find some references in my books and will get back here either way.

In the interim, see the attched graphic. It's from US Army Field Manual 21-18, Foot Marches (LINK) It's a rough guide.

Anecdotally, a good Infantry Unit decently trained (all are not...) and in good physical condition (same remark applies...) can reliably do a little over 5 MPH/8Km cross country for about 3-6 hours, terrain dependent, they can average around 4 MPH/6-7 Km for about 6 to 10 hours, terrain dependent. The 3.2 figure below is for day in-day out or continuous foot movement. Note also that a good unit can beat the Night figure given depending on ambient light and their equipment. All those figure assume no enemy contact and minimal security concerns.

As I'm sure you know, years ago, those figures were often exceeded mostly due to more experience walking, they walked almost everywhere as do few today. Also consider that the North American Indians were not the only ones to use the alternating pace of run a while, walk a while -- that method can eat up a lot of miles and a good unit using the technique today can easily do 6 or 7 miles an hour in rolling terrain. Back in the day, units and individuals with a long trip used that technique and knocked out 30-40 miles a day, equaling Cavalry in many cases.

Terrain is the big factor here, along with the load bearing issue. In the mountains with full kit, pace goes way down. 2mph would be a ballpark figure there. I would take that down to 1mph or less if you're not on switchbacks and trails and trying to go uphill.

Rolling grassland is very different than rolling terrain with bushes and trees that are about 6ft in height. You lose a lot of straight line distance by veering around objects, so that hurts the pace.

Standard pace on roads is 4mph. Not too bad. Not easy, not hard. For me, being shorter, after the first 6 miles I have to start the run a bit, walk a bit in order to stay at 4mph. My stride isn't that long and I don't have that ability to move in short but quick strides. Ken White is on the money about training. If I go out walking / hiking / rucking and I haven't done it in a while I'll move about 3.5mph and feel ok. After I do it a time or two, my pace goes to 3.8mph. I then have to remind myself to pick it up a bit to get to 4 or higher. With conditioning and practice it gets easier. There is definitely some skill factor to go along with the conditioning factor. Units that train for it will do much better, as Ken White stated.

Load plan is a big deal too. Weight on my hips makes mountain movement a bit easier than having it top-loaded on vest and pack. Keeps my COG where it should be. Feels much more efficient and biomechanically I believe adding 1lb on your feet is equivalent to adding 6lbs at the waist. More reason to pick your boots wisely. So, hip loads are more efficient. However, in complex terrain they can interfere a bit with moving your legs and feet over obstacles.

Bottom line, these days, if you want to get somewhere on foot and do it tactically you'd better plan to do it slowly. Tactical movement plus heavy loads equals slow movement. You can go quickly but it won't be tactical. It'll be loud, the dispersion will be awful, overwatch will disappear, and your guys are likely to be combat-ineffective at RP. Look at pictures of squads/plts in AFG. Many times you see them on a switchback or narrow trail, just walking. Probably making decent time but you can tell the security isn't there, they're spaced about 3m apart and the overwatch is not present. Again, they are making decent time from A to B, but tactically moving takes time and in AFG most of that should be tactical with overwatch, not a traveling movement.

Finally, if you track the studs that do the Bataan Memorial Death March in the heavy category (min 35lbs) you'll see some people out there do the full 26.2 miles in 6hrs. I've done it a few times now and my range is 7:45 to 8:15. When I finish I'm tired and certainly am glad to finish. However, if I wanted to stretch it out to a 12 hour active period (dawn to dusk, roughly) I could foresee getting in 30 miles per day for well conditioned individuals, with 8 hours or so of rest, and the other 4 in prep time, camp set up, security, gather food, water, etc.

Kearny's Army of the West averaged about 20 miles a day on the trek from Fort Leavenworth to Bent's fort.

It occurs to me that the various American forces fighting in the Mexican-American war all had to walk to work over many types of terrain, mountains, deserts, forests and plains. It might be useful to look at their rates of travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Kearny's Army of the West averaged about 20 miles a day on the trek from Fort Leavenworth to Bent's fort.

It occurs to me that the various American forces fighting in the Mexican-American war all had to walk to work over many types of terrain, mountains, deserts, forests and plains. It might be useful to look at their rates of travel.

---

Standard US Marine requirement is a battalion to move 24 miles in eight hours with field marching pack, flak jacket, helmet, T/O weapon...approximately 55- 60 lbs and no ammo. Many foot sore Marines the next day...basic load of ammo and you can hit 75 lbs real quick. If I were you I would look at Lewis and Clark...different terrain, different modes, water, foot, horse...and google maps has it all layed out by journal entry.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...570313&t=h&z=4
;)

New user,

read this post in my RSS feed and couldn't help but add some insights.

I have completed a 22-25 mile in what I believe was around 7 hours. I ran about 50% of the time, and carried 65-70 pounds dry (without water), over unimproved roads, and limited cross country (low vegetation). All I remember is I left at midnight and arrived at the destination just after full day break.

US Army infantry standard is 12 miles in 3 hours with around 35-40 pounds. Most will have to run a little, or at least full hard striding the whole way.

4 miles an hour with hardened troops is a reasonable pace to arrive at the destination in fighting shape. However, the aforementioned 22 mile march left me unable to do much for a day or so at completion.

Average patrolling speed for a deliberate foot patrol is 1 kilometer an hour cross country. This speed is planned when the element is moving slowly and deliberately.

Full cross country I have completed 20 kilometers in rough terrain, vegetation, and water crossings, in about 10 hours.

Quote:

---

Finally, if you track the studs that do the Bataan Memorial Death March in the heavy category (min 35lbs) you'll see some people out there do the full 26.2 miles in 6hrs.

---

Is it true that a SAS heavy team ran the entire route?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

Is it true that a SAS heavy team ran the entire route?

---

I don't know who...but I do remember a couple times coming to the fork, around mile 9 or so?....where you go right onto the hardball. About that time the marathon runners are headed back. I have seen a couple people trot by in boots with a ruck on. No idea of their affiliation. It's impressive.

I've heard the rumors about the SAS team (heard SEAL and SF too). I don't think it takes a SAS team to do that. If I remember correctly, in the past few years, a team from the medical center at Ft. Bliss has won the team competition. That event is tailored to those that have the ability to train for it. That said - I could not do that, and it wouldn't surprise me if some cyborgs from SAS or CAG showed up and ran the thing, just for fun.

The studs that power through that event are impressive. However, it's more moving to see the survivors and then when going through the pit, to see wounded warriors going through there, with two prosthetic limbs, etc. Puts things in perspective for sure.

I am much obliged to everyone for sharing your knowledge. Anyone interested in colonial-era travel might find Paul A. W. Wallace’s essay about the travel network in 18th century Pennsylvania worthwhile; it is preliminary to a later book.

Quote:

---

Kearny's Army of the West averaged about 20 miles a day on the trek from Fort Leavenworth to Bent's fort.

---

This figure might bear some scrutiny. Surely anyone given the opportunity to leave Fort Leavenworth behind them would do so at a faster clip. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'll dig around and see if I can find some references in my books and will get back here either way.

In the interim, see the attched graphic. It's from US Army Field Manual 21-18, Foot Marches (LINK) It's a rough guide.

---

Ken, thanks for that manual.

I understand and have some experience of how these marches become "games" or a sport when the aim is lost.

I quote from the manual you provided a link to:

Quote:

---

1-3. MARCH MISSION
A successful foot march is when troops arrive at their destination
at the prescribed time. They are also physically able to execute
their tactical mission.

a. Troops must execute the mission immediately upon
completing the march. Normally, this is done through
conditioning and acclimatization of troops to the area of
operations. This includes physiological and psychological
adjustment by the individual soldier.

b. Commanders must ensure that the amount and type of
equipment carried, the rate of march, and the length and number
of rests equates with the physical endurance of the men. Good
planning and command leadership are required to move troops
to the right place at the right time. The commander also ensures
troops arrive in good condition to accomplish their mission.

---

30 years on my opinion has not changed that the performance of a small team of carefully selected soldiers from a unit involved in a loaded march competition against small teams from other units is a waste of time and resources.

I suggest that one of the tests of unit/company/platoon operational readiness is for all the members to partake in a march in compliance with the above quote being that the company leaves together, marches together, arrives together and are able to conduct an operation together as a unit on arrival. To allow this aspect of soldiering to become a race is part of the insanity that grows in armies in peacetime. There is no doubt such a test laid down somewhere.

That valuable manual provides historical examples, like this one:

Quote:

---

A good example of a successful march occurred during World War II. It was the grueling foot march during the Sicilian campaign from 20 to 21 July 1943. The 3d Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division performed this march. The battalion was directed to move on foot across mountains from Aragona to San Stefano to enter into a coordinated attack on enemy forces in San Stefano. The battalion made this record-breaking, 54-mile, cross-country march in only 33 hours due to continuous marching. Two hours after arrival, the battalion was committed in the attack on San Stefano, which resulted in its capture.

---

Outstanding effort. I suggest that this is what the training should be aimed at preparing a unit to achieve and units should avoid or be forced to avoid getting involved in side shows where non representative "teams" from units battle it out in militarily pointless races of the insane kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

I understand and have some experience of how these marches become "games" or a sport when the aim is lost.

---

Before WWII Fairbairn and Sykes made the same observation about police qualifying with pistols. They stopped keeping score at 50% hits on the target to avoid qualifications becoming sporting events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polarbear1605

Standard US Marine requirement is a battalion to move 24 miles in eight hours with field marching pack, flak jacket, helmet, T/O weapon...approximately 55- 60 lbs and no ammo. Many foot sore Marines the next day...

---

Agreed. I'd be curious to see what percentage of our combat arms units (even infantry) would be able to conduct ongoing, high-intensity combat operations after covering 20-30 miles a day on foot for a couple weeks. I strongly suspect it would be a much lower percentage than in armies of a century ago, due to lack of real acclimatization/foot hardening.

Based on two weeks training with Royal Marines, I will say they do a lot more of that than we do, at least during entry-level training. And Patrick Hennessey's book mentions how all Sandhurst cadets conduct Exercise Long Reach, a 36 hour, 80 km march over hilly terrain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Before WWII Fairbairn and Sykes made the same observation about police qualifying with pistols. They stopped keeping score at 50% hits on the target to avoid qualifications becoming sporting events.

---

Carl, they must have been wise men. I don't know the police equivalent but for the infantry their role is to close with and kill the enemy (not destroy them that's what the air force does, what the artillery does, what armour does)... the infantry gets up close and personal.

The question must always be asked of training... "how does this training prepare my soldiers for their infantry role?" If it fails the - it helps them hone their skills to close with and kill the enemy - test then don't do it.

In the military peacetime is the curse. In peacetime it is when the garrison soldiers come to the fore and the warriors leave through boredom. It is like a cancer and the symptoms must be dealt with severely when the display themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

Carl, they must have been wise men. I don't know the police equivalent but for the infantry their role is to close with and kill the enemy (not destroy them that's what the air force does, what the artillery does, what armour does)... the infantry gets up close and personal.

---

Close with and arrest,kill if necessary. They were wise men, they were brought out of retirement to train the OSS in WW2. And to this day they still influence LE and the military but not as much as they used to.

PDF for Shooting to Live by Fairbairn and Sykes.

www.safeism.com/texts/ShootingToLive.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

PDF for Shooting to Live by Fairbairn and Sykes.

www.safeism.com/texts/ShootingToLive.pdf

---

They had to run a small obstacle course first and then go straight into qualifying with their weapon. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

.....units should avoid or be forced to avoid getting involved in side shows where non representative "teams" from units battle it out in militarily pointless races of the insane kind.

---

Oh, you heretic! :eek:

You just trashed the Best Ranger Competition! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Before WWII Fairbairn and Sykes made the same observation about police qualifying with pistols. They stopped keeping score at 50% hits on the target to avoid qualifications becoming sporting events.

---

I can see their point but other top cops have disagreed.

For instance, some members of the now defunct NYPD Stakeout Squad used to shoot competition and thought it helpful for stress inoculation.

Now, how did we get here from foot mobility? :wry:

Back to subject of sustained marching with loads or going straight into a fight after a hard march: I think the best 20th Century historical examples would probably be the Chindits and Marauders from WWII's CBI and the Mobile Guerilla Forces (Blackjack Projects) from Vietnam.

Don't know what they averaged but I imagine the info is out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

For instance, some members of the now defunct NYPD Stakeout Squad used to shoot competition and thought it helpful for stress inoculation.

---

The problem with that is the problem that JMA alluded to, people are interested in competition and they concentrate on the things that work in competition and then they start figuring competition is the actual object and stress teaching what works in competition. It all goes around around and around and ends up a game.

Free-play exercise campaigns brigade vs. brigade, red cell vs. security company, patrols vs. patrols, MI and recce vs. counter-recce/CCD team - that's where soldiers should compete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Back to subject of sustained marching with loads or going straight into a fight after a hard march: I think the best 20th Century historical examples would probably be the Chindits and Marauders from WWII's CBI and the Mobile Guerilla Forces (Blackjack Projects) from Vietnam.

Don't know what they averaged but I imagine the info is out there.

---

...the Long March, Chinese invasion of Tibet, the 85% foot-mobile German army in 1940-1945?

And now prepare for the usual reminder:
There were campaigns in military history (even WW2!) that did not involve anglophone troops on either side.

Fuchs: The classic image of German infantry marching in WWII depicts them carrying an equipment belt, rifle, helmet and not much else. No big mongo pack in sight. The would imply wagons along to carry things. Is that what more or less was?

Yes, infantry platoons had their own carts - typically a small wagon with one or two small horses ('Panje' horses) in 1942-1945 on the Eastern front.

An infantry division was (April 1940) supposed to have 16,860 men, 1,743 riding horses (especially for officers, scouts and couriers), 3,632 cart horses and 895 horse carts. The quantity of cart horses and carts had to be increased after immense horse losses in late 1941; the replacements were more resilient, but also weaker Russian horses, and their smaller carts.
Often times former Red Army soldiers (especially minorities) were employed as volunteers for many logistical tasks - charioteer was a typical task. These volunteers often received German uniforms, but without rank insignia. Some even received iron crosses and other medals. Speaking about such volunteers in German language is of course not very PC.


Typical rifle company:
3 horse carts each 2 horses or 3 horse carts each 1 horse + 1 cart with 4 horses
1 field kitchen cart with 4 horses
1 supply train (Verpflegungstroß I) with 1 horse cart + 2 horses

Companies were also supposed to have some 3 metric ton trucks. Military vehicles were required to have a marching gear for 4 km/h (foot march speed). Civilian vehicles were more typical post-mobilisation, of course.

Quick source: "Das Handbuch der deutschen Infanterie", Alex Buchner,

Foot mobility standard given for finnish soldiers in newest soldier's hand book is 15km (10miles) in eight hours with combat gear+field gear (~40kg/88lbs). Althought most times (In peacetime. In wartime? :confused:) field gear will travel in platoon's truck. Only recon and sissi units carry their field equipment.
I wonder if its grown motorisation/mechanisation of army, reduced training times, or aknowledgement of fitness rate of typical reservist, because in eighties stardard was 20-25km march, fullgear and eight hours.

Ft. Bnning, under Maj. Gen. Latham in 1976 required every IOBC class to do 25 miles without pack, but with rifle and pistol belt and canteens, in 8 hours. We built up to that with several shorter foot marchs and easily did the requirement. Was footsore, but I believe we could have performed a mission at the end of the march. (it rained the whole time for ours).
Upon my arrival at B Co., 2/327 in Feb 77 I was told that B Co. had done 25 miles in four hours a year before with one SSg. dead of a heart attack. Never sa
w any documentation of that. Wish I knew that SSgt. name. Anyone?
Tipy
Was told that MG Latham had seen soldiers stop and give up and die during retreats during the Korean war. Wonder what ever happened to MG Latham?

Some more tidbits:

The VW Typ 82 Kbelwagen (cheaper jeep equivalent of WW2) was required to have a gear for foot march speed. It was meant to allow 4 km/h minimum speed.


Another detail:
I read a book about pre-WWI militaries in Europe (great power, focus on Germany and Austria-Hungary) again.
It mentioned
30 km required foot march / day
25 km practical march / day
50 km as one-time only exceptional forced march

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tipy

Ft. Bnning, under Maj. Gen. Latham in 1976 required every IOBC class to do 25 miles without pack, but with rifle and pistol belt and canteens, in 8 hours. […] Upon my arrival at B Co., 2/327 in Feb 77 I was told that B Co. had done 25 miles in four hours a year before with one SSg. dead of a heart attack.

---

That’s a passable marathon pace without boots and the rest of the kit.

To add to what Ganulv said, this website

http://www.marathontrainingexpert.co...thon-time.html

states that the average time for men to complete a marathon is 4 hours 30 minutes. I doubt B Co. did that.

Tipy asked:

Quote:

---

Wonder what ever happened to MG Latham?

---

He retired in 1980 and a Google article states:

Quote:

---

General Latham’s military career took him from leading an infantry platoon in combat during the Korean War to being the Deputy Commander of combat ready Army Corps in Germany. General Latham’s career began by leading a mortar and rifle platoon in Korea for two years.

---

Link:https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...HIEtbSCJTGJesq

He really did like walking:http://www.uta.edu/publications/utam...ture%20Stories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

To add to what Ganulv said, this website

http://www.marathontrainingexpert.co...thon-time.html

states that the average time for men to complete a marathon is 4 hours 30 minutes. I doubt B Co. did that.

---

Running 26.2 miles at any pace is an accomplishment -- I've never run farther than 20 miles at a time myself but it was plenty! for me, the difference between 12 and 15 miles isn't so much, but there is definitely a difference between 15 and 18 :o -- but 4 hours 30 minutes is as you say average. I think the qualifying time for the Boston Marathon is 3 hours 10 minutes.

Twenty-five miles in four hours in kit wouldn't be a superhuman feat but it would require serious athletes, not just a bunch of guys in good shape. Seems like overkill to me, though. Twelve-and-a-half miles in two hours with that load would tell me enough about general fitness. (Or as my high school cross-country coach once told me, "Most world class distance runners aim to run 100 miles a week because it's a nice round number. 88 seems just as round to me." :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

Running 26.2 miles at any pace is an accomplishment -- I've never run farther than 20 miles at a time myself but it was plenty! for me, the difference between 12 and 15 miles isn't so much, but there is definitely a difference between 15 and 18 :o -- but 4 hours 30 minutes is as you say average. I think the qualifying time for the Boston Marathon is 3 hours 10 minutes.

Twenty-five miles in four hours in kit wouldn't be a superhuman feat but it would require serious athletes, not just a bunch of guys in good shape. Seems like overkill to me, though. Twelve-and-a-half miles in two hours with that load would tell me enough about general fitness. (Or as my high school cross-country coach once told me, "Most world class distance runners aim to run 100 miles a week because it's a nice round number. 88 seems just as round to me." :D)

---

Often the original intention behind this training is good... but in peace time the 'means to the end' often becomes the end in itself.

The idea behind these marches is to approach the enemy on foot and surprise them by putting in an attack after the march. For this purpose the Brits use 'march and shoot' exercises where at the end of the (often) ten mile march troops need to shoot for a score.

The idea is for the company/platoon to arrive together in a condition to launch directly into an attack. So the speed is controlled (or should be) and the weight carried should equate to first line ammo plus a reserve (including light mortars) to sustain an attack on arrival with enough spare to fight off any counter attack before reinforcements and/or the land tail arrives.

This is the idea... but you will always find (idiot) officers who turn it into a speed competition leaving the troops in no condition to fight at the end of the march.

As they say... some mothers have them and the army gets them.

Edit: I note I commented much the same earlier in the thread. In fact I would go so far as to recommend that a company commander gets fired/relieved if 6 men (two per platoon) drop out of the march (which must be conducted at a controlled pace). If more than two drop out per platoon you fire the officer and the sergeant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

Often the original intention behind this training is good... but in peace time the 'means to the end' often becomes the end in itself.

The idea behind these marches is to approach the enemy on foot and surprise them by putting in an attack after the march. For this purpose the Brits use 'march and shoot' exercises where at the end of the (often) ten mile march troops need to shoot for a score.

The idea is for the company/platoon to arrive together in a condition to launch directly into an attack. So the speed is controlled (or should be) and the weight carried should equate to first line ammo plus a reserve (including light mortars) to sustain an attack on arrival with enough spare to fight off any counter attack before reinforcements and/or the land tail arrives.

This is the idea... but you will always find (idiot) officers who turn it into a speed competition leaving the troops in no condition to fight at the end of the march.

As they say... some mothers have them and the army gets them.

Edit: I note I commented much the same earlier in the thread. In fact I would go so far as to recommend that a company commander gets fired/relieved if 6 men (two per platoon) drop out of the march (which must be conducted at a controlled pace). If more than two drop out per platoon you fire the officer and the sergeant.

---

Nice comment JMA. It is good to be reminded what the actual purpose of the thing is.

The same thing happens in with American police in shooting. High qualification scores get to be an end in themselves. So many things seem to turn into sporting events, as you note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Nice comment JMA. It is good to be reminded what the actual purpose of the thing is.

The same thing happens in with American police in shooting. High qualification scores get to be an end in themselves. So many things seem to turn into sporting events, as you note.

---

Carl its simple and here is what its all about from US experience (repeat):

Quote:

---

A good example of a successful march occurred during World War II. It was the grueling foot march during the Sicilian campaign from 20 to 21 July 1943. The 3d Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division performed this march. The battalion was directed to move on foot across mountains from Aragona to San Stefano to enter into a coordinated attack on enemy forces in San Stefano. The battalion made this record-breaking, 54-mile, cross-country march in only 33 hours due to continuous marching. Two hours after arrival, the battalion was committed in the attack on San Stefano, which resulted in its capture.

---

Training should be aimed at being able to replicate that magnificent feat.

Good post JMA, and an instructive bit on the utility of the march as a means and not an end. I see the attitude you've mentioned quite frequently in our Battle Fitness Test.

In the Indian Army, foot mobility is the norm since most of the infantry is up in the mountains and the High Altitude.

Eyeball to eyeball contact does not allow air transportation!

And roads are non existent in most places!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

In the Indian Army, foot mobility is the norm since most of the infantry is up in the mountains and the High Altitude.

Eyeball to eyeball contact does not allow air transportation!

And roads are non existent in most places!

---

So what (may I ask) is your fitness standard in this regard? Carrying what weight? What distance within what time, uphill or flat or whatever?

Why are march fitness, agility fitness and weight carried such a evergreen topic?
Isn't the answer simple enough?

Self-discipline in training and in defining the loads.

It's really, really simple to trace almost all failures ever associated with these topics to failure in regard to the aforementioned requirement.

It's usually a failure of leadership either in regard to the leader's self-discipline during routine tasks or in regard to his self-discipline in making decisions. It's easy to dodge a difficult decision (weighing the pro and cons of loads) by just ordering the men to carry (too) much. In the end, the leader can claim that his mission was impossible because the men were not capable enough. That's an especially easy pretext when the leader hasn't been in charge (or the team hasn't been coherent) long enough to coin the fitness and competence of his men himself.

It's really not so important how much certain armies marched in certain ages per day. Leaders need to make difficult decisions and need to prepare their men, and it's always a trade-off.


What's interesting is not what others did or do; it's what kind of fitness your troops are expected to have (expected by higher HQ) and how you can match this and other expectations through exercise and load definition.

It's always a trade-off, an optimisation - and the cure-all for the problem is to arrange leadership dynamics in a way that does not encourage an overemphasis of loads carried and does not tolerate major training inefficiencies.
The solution is thus in the (junior) officer corps, not in weight tables, thinner fabrics or polymer cartridge cases. The senior leadership only needs to grow some political backbone and adjust its casualty aversion in a way that allows for strategic success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Why are march fitness, agility fitness and weight carried such a evergreen topic?
Isn't the answer simple enough?

---

Yes it is. There are two reasons why there should be a standard both at recruit training level and for trained soldiers. Once achieved the troops can be relied upon to meet that standard in war time and also the individual troops know that they can do it and develop the self confidence in their ability in that regard.

Quote:

---

Self-discipline in training and in defining the loads.

It's really, really simple to trace almost all failures ever associated with these topics to failure in regard to the aforementioned requirement.

---

I'm not sure what you mean.

Start with loads. There are ammunition and equipment scales/tables out there (or should be) for just about any phase of war and other activities. Therefore such an exercise will encourage planning in how to distribute the weight yet be able to concentrate the it where its needed in the shortest time.

Using ammo/equipt scales that would be needed for a night march leading to a first light attack (as per the example above) is always a good bet.

How often should this be practiced? Well that depends on whether in peacetime or at war. In peacetime annual 'march and shoot' competitions are the norm (I believe) where at war realistic training/rehearsals are fitted in as and when required.

Quote:

---

It's usually a failure of leadership either in regard to the leader's self-discipline during routine tasks or in regard to his self-discipline in making decisions. It's easy to dodge a difficult decision (weighing the pro and cons of loads) by just ordering the men to carry (too) much. In the end, the leader can claim that his mission was impossible because the men were not capable enough. That's an especially easy pretext when the leader hasn't been in charge (or the team hasn't been coherent) long enough to coin the fitness and competence of his men himself.

It's really not so important how much certain armies marched in certain ages per day. Leaders need to make difficult decisions and need to prepare their men, and it's always a trade-off.

What's interesting is not what others did or do; it's what kind of fitness your troops are expected to have (expected by higher HQ) and how you can match this and other expectations through exercise and load definition.

It's always a trade-off, an optimisation - and the cure-all for the problem is to arrange leadership dynamics in a way that does not encourage an overemphasis of loads carried and does not tolerate major training inefficiencies.

---

I agree if you are saying that battalion and company officers should be held accountable to make sure their troops are battle ready (which includes physical fitness to a laid down standard). If the unit/sub-unit fails to meet the standard you fire the officers, however, IMHO, the officers who turn the whole thing into a game should also be fired.

Quote:

---

The solution is thus in the (junior) officer corps, not in weight tables, thinner fabrics or polymer cartridge cases. The senior leadership only needs to grow some political backbone and adjust its casualty aversion in a way that allows for strategic success.

---

You are correct if you mean that it is the responsibility of the officers and the NCOs to arrive at the objective with the unit together and intact and ready to engage the enemy. So yes there must be careful consideration of the terrain to be traversed and the speed required (and achievable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

In the end, the leader can claim that his mission was impossible because the men were not capable enough.

---

Very astute comment that gets at the human nature core of the thing. In one of the threads on the Council, the one about soldier's load and body armor and such, if you go back to the early postings, there are numerous comments reflecting exactly that attitude. Many comments to the effect that people need to work out more, try harder etc., ie-blaming the men.

Too bad we don't still have cavalry and horse mounted infantry. If a cavalry unit exhausted its horses on an approach march to the extent they couldn't do anything but pant upon arrival, no officer could get away with saying it was the horse's fault. They would just be fired for not knowing the condition of and abusing the animals. If they overloaded the animals the load would be lightened, no excuses. They get away with it with men now though. If there were still animal units around at least somebody could point to the mule train and say "You don't expect it from them!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Very astute comment that gets at the human nature core of the thing. In one of the threads on the Council, the one about soldier's load and body armor and such, if you go back to the early postings, there are numerous comments reflecting exactly that attitude. Many comments to the effect that people need to work out more, try harder etc., ie-blaming the men.

---

Carl, a new arrival commander takes over a going concern which everyone will know is either up to standard or is not. What follows is the first months - called the 'honeymoon period' - where the new guy has time to settle in and establish himself before he is held personally responsible for the battle readiness of the unit/sub-unit.

Once the 'honeymoon period is over he has no place to hide... and no one else to blame.

This one... still true:

Quote:

---

In the British Army, there are no good battalions and no bad battalions, no good regiments and no bad regiments. There are only good and bad officers. - FIELD-MARSHAL SIR WILLIAM SLIM echoing NAPOLEON

---

This is why initial officer selection is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

So what (may I ask) is your fitness standard in this regard? Carrying what weight? What distance within what time, uphill or flat or whatever?

---

The pace of movement varies depending upon the terrain. In High Altitude, we carry about 20/25 kgs.

There is the usual Battle Physical Efficiency Tests with full combat load and weapon that includes a 5 km run in 28 mins to qualify as Satisfactory), 10 mile run in 1 hour 40 mins to be in Satisfactory, 9 feet ditch, money rope and so on. Then the Physical Proficiency Test. A swimming Test. The standards are marginally different for below 45yrs of age and above 45 years of age. Then there is the Obstacle Course.

We had a 40kms march (which is practically a run) in 5 hours with full battle loads (I don't have the exact weights, but it consists of the Field Service Marching Order with the big pack, haversack, pouch ammunition, water bottle, helmet and the weapon). I don't know if they still have this.

The standards have changed I am told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The pace of movement varies depending upon the terrain. In High Altitude, we carry about 20/25 kgs.

There is the usual Battle Physical Efficiency Tests with full combat load and weapon that includes a 5 km run in 28 mins to qualify as Satisfactory), 10 mile run in 1 hour 40 mins to be in Satisfactory, 9 feet ditch, money rope and so on. Then the Physical Proficiency Test. A swimming Test. The standards are marginally different for below 45yrs of age and above 45 years of age. Then there is the Obstacle Course.

We had a 40kms march (which is practically a run) in 5 hours with full battle loads (I don't have the exact weights, but it consists of the Field Service Marching Order with the big pack, haversack, pouch ammunition, water bottle, helmet and the weapon). I don't know if they still have this.

The standards have changed I am told.

---

Thank you. Always interesting to see how other armies/nations approach this issue. Seems like there is some lingering Brit influence there?

The British influence lingers, but then the modern way of analysing everything scientifically and psychologically is taking its toll. Common sense soldiering and leadership is being sacrificed at the altar of 'scientific leadership' and it is failing (as I see it!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The British influence lingers, but then the modern way of analysing everything scientifically and psychologically is taking its toll. Common sense soldiering and leadership is being sacrificed at the altar of 'scientific leadership' and it is failing (as I see it!)

---

We seem to share a similar concern.

To take it further I don't see a solution as despite a holding action in some quarters the US belief that with a Henry Ford style production line they will be able to meet every challenge if they have enough time to prepare. So in the meantime they just continue to allow potential enemies to catch up and soon... to overtake them. The military is as much to blame as the politicians.

You need to help me understand the Indian deterrent because as it stands (in my understanding) beyond the numbers game I see not much hope from that quarter.

Indian deterrent from the concept point of view for our adversaries are well in place. The nuclear threshold has been catered for against Pakistan with what is popularly termed as the Cold Start.

In the numbers game, as it is well know, two Divisions are being added to the Eastern front.

Indian foreign policy is very passive and the defence forces are geared to translate what is dictated them. We are capable of defending our territorial integrity, but maybe we are not quite capable of offensive actions.

The problem is that Indian indigenous defence industry is as good as not be there. The Defence Public Service Undertaking are merely assembling foreign weapon systems where we have the option of Licence Production/ Transfer of Technology. The Defence Research and Development Organisation excepting in the Nuclear and Rocket Science have no major contribution.

The fact that India depends heavily on foreign nations for its weaponry is the Achilles Heel because if a sanction is imposed, as it has been done earlier, then the war machine is up for the grabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Indian deterrent from the concept point of view for our adversaries are well in place. The nuclear threshold has been catered for against Pakistan with what is popularly termed as the Cold Start.

In the numbers game, as it is well know, two Divisions are being added to the Eastern front.

Indian foreign policy is very passive and the defence forces are geared to translate what is dictated them. We are capable of defending our territorial integrity, but maybe we are not quite capable of offensive actions.

The problem is that Indian indigenous defence industry is as good as not be there. The Defence Public Service Undertaking are merely assembling foreign weapon systems where we have the option of Licence Production/ Transfer of Technology. The Defence Research and Development Organisation excepting in the Nuclear and Rocket Science have no major contribution.

The fact that India depends heavily on foreign nations for its weaponry is the Achilles Heel because if a sanction is imposed, as it has been done earlier, then the war machine is up for the grabs.

---

Thanks for the considered reply... and sorry for taking this thread off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

The problem is that Indian indigenous defence industry is as good as not be there. The Defence Public Service Undertaking are merely assembling foreign weapon systems where we have the option of Licence Production/ Transfer of Technology. The Defence Research and Development Organisation excepting in the Nuclear and Rocket Science have no major contribution.

The fact that India depends heavily on foreign nations for its weaponry is the Achilles Heel because if a sanction is imposed, as it has been done earlier, then the war machine is up for the grabs.

---

Just curious because I am a bit of a kit anorak, but are the Bergens, climbing gear, &tc. used by the IA's mountain units domestically produced?

Most of it are indigenous.