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!
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?Originally Posted by Ray
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean.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.
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.
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.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.
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).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.
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
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:
This is why initial officer selection is so important.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
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!)
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.
Last edited by Ray; 04-15-2012 at 06:03 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks