Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Light infantry foot mobility standards?

  1. #41
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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!"
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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:

    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.

  3. #43
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    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?

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    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!)

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Ray; 04-15-2012 at 06:03 AM.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    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?
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  10. #50
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Most of it are indigenous.

Similar Threads

  1. Mechanized Infantry Perceptions 2010
    By Seerov in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 08-06-2014, 03:30 AM
  2. All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: 05-08-2013, 01:05 PM
  3. Mechanization hurts COIN forces
    By Granite_State in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 11-22-2010, 09:40 PM
  4. Infantry survivability - at the crossroads?
    By Fuchs in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 11:49 AM
  5. Light infantry TOEs
    By Rifleman in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 05:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •