Change in the way British military train for fitness?

OP

Original post by CoolCavy

'focus more on short bursts of strength and conditioning work, as well as being given adequate rests to allow their bodies to recover'

hm, in war isn't it imperative to be able to go for long distances without any rest? like the yomping in the falklands by the RMs

this is exactly what comes to mind.

The whole point, in my mind, was that you need to attain a near-elite level of fitness in sub-optimal conditions; lack of sleep/recovery etc to best replicate the conditions of warfare.

(edited 5 years ago)

Original post by hezzlington

this is exactly what comes to mind.

Indeed (obviously im no expert on the armed forces i just take an interest in military history) but imho it is important to be an all round soldier, something which i think the RM excel at considering they have commando tests such as the tarzan and 9 miler (short burst speed courses) and stuff like the 30 miler across dartmoor (endurance). Tumultuous conflict zones are unpredictable and as the paras say 'Utrinque Paratus', you need to be ready for anything

Reply 4

Daveboi115

This is an evolution of the military standards and progress. Yes the RM and Paras have a fantastic history of long distance endurance and they will continue to do so. They will add this training not replace their old. As we develop in a military context we place ourselves in much better vantage points both literally and figuratively.

The requirement of a stronger military with greater bursts of strength shows even in basic training at the moment. We pepper pot forward to our enemy positions, fight through and then call a reorg, where we assess casualty and ammo states and send necessary reports up the CoC. We take large expanses of ground and patrol around these as necessary. The vast majority of the military is not required in long distance bounding bar the obvious SF/SFSG/recce platoons.

Those who require it will still have it. Those who don’t will be developing in a better way. Much more necessary to the evolving conflicts of today.

Original post by Daveboi115

This is an evolution of the military standards and progress. Yes the RM and Paras have a fantastic history of long distance endurance and they will continue to do so. They will add this training not replace their old. As we develop in a military context we place ourselves in much better vantage points both literally and figuratively.

The requirement of a stronger military with greater bursts of strength shows even in basic training at the moment. We pepper pot forward to our enemy positions, fight through and then call a reorg, where we assess casualty and ammo states and send necessary reports up the CoC. We take large expanses of ground and patrol around these as necessary. The vast majority of the military is not required in long distance bounding bar the obvious SF/SFSG/recce platoons.

Those who require it will still have it. Those who don’t will be developing in a better way. Much more necessary to the evolving conflicts of today.

Thanks for that insight :smile:

Reply 6

Ninja Squirrel

I don't agree with the change because in war it's about endurance mostly. Short burst training is also good but the military already incorporates that into the training.

Reply 7

Daveboi115

Original post by Ninja Squirrel

I don't agree with the change because in war it's about endurance mostly. Short burst training is also good but the military already incorporates that into the training.

It’s not the sort of endurance you’re thinking of however. No longer do we carry out 15-20 mile operations. Even in Afghanistan of recent, RLC drivers drop us off no more than 8 miles outside objective. There’s no need to carry large portions of equipment over great distances. We work out of patrol bases scattered at well defined plots with good comms and living conditions. The endurance of the falklands has been long gone whether we like it or not. We haven’t needed it and we won’t need it again. What we do need, is powerful aggressive bursts of kinetic warfare. That’s what we do now, and it’s what we will continue to do in the future.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 8

OP

Original post by Daveboi115

It’s not the sort of endurance you’re thinking of however. No longer do we carry out 15-20 mile operations. Even in Afghanistan of recent, RLC drivers drop us off no more than 8 miles outside objective. There’s no need to carry large portions of equipment over great distances. We work out of patrol bases scattered at well defined plots with good comms and living conditions. The endurance of the falklands has been long gone whether we like it or not. We haven’t needed it and we won’t need it again. What we do need, is powerful aggressive bursts of kinetic warfare. That’s what we do now, and it’s what we will continue to do in the future.

can you see historic assessments of fitness like the RM '30 miler' or changes to P company being made?

In the article, it mentions recovery/injury prevention. Do you envisage during training a larger focus on getting adequate sleep and a greater focus on proper nutrition?

(edited 5 years ago)

Original post by hezzlington

can you see historic assessments of fitness like the RM '30 miler' or changes to P company being made?

In the article, it mentions recovery/injury prevention. Do you envisage during training a larger focus on getting adequate sleep and a greater focus on proper nutrition?

This is slightly off topic but i believe RM are going to allow women in? do you think that will change the fitness standard? :s-smilie:

i hope it doesn't but am not sure

Reply 10

OP

Original post by CoolCavy

This is slightly off topic but i believe RM are going to allow women in? do you think that will change the fitness standard? :s-smilie:

i hope it doesn't but am not sure

They do already, and they claim the fitness standards are the same for both genders.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/women

I haven't heard of any female Royal Marines passing the full course though?

Reply 11

Drewski

Original post by CoolCavy

This is slightly off topic but i believe RM are going to allow women in? do you think that will change the fitness standard? :s-smilie:

i hope it doesn't but am not sure

All branches will be allowing women in. But nobody's really made that clear just yet.

Original post by Drewski

All branches will be allowing women in. But nobody's really made that clear just yet.

Original post by hezzlington

They do already, and they claim the fitness standards are the same for both genders.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/women

I haven't heard of any female Royal Marines passing the full course though?

Thanks both :smile:

Reply 13

Tempest II

16

https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/end-of-hell-for-leather-training-as-army-gets-new-fitness-regime

"An Army source said the Royal Army Physical Training Corps’ shift in fitness philosophy is an attempt to “bring training into the 21st Century”.

As well as underlining the importance of rest, hydration and nutrition, soldiers will be encouraged to report niggling pains they experience in order to treat injuries early, rather than pretending that suffering in silence is macho.

Meanwhile, more sessions are likely to be carried out in swimming pools because water offers support and reduces impact injuries.

Greater emphasis will also be placed on preparing recruits for the specific physical rigours each unit will be asked to face in the field of battle.

The source added that the Army had learned from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan where marching at speed became irrelevant, in part because of the heat and hidden improvised explosives posing a ever-present threat.

“But, there may be a need for a soldier to employ a short burst of intense energy carrying an injured colleague away,” he said.

“We want to make soldiers stronger and better prepared for the jobs that they will face in their unit.

“And, in so doing we also want to reduce injuries. It’s not just about going hell for leather. Professional athletes - footballers, rugby players and Olympians - do not do all out training all of the time.”

I'm in two minds about this. While it's no bad thing that the Army are looking at modern sports science, especially if it means fitter soldiers, & trying to reduce injuries (circa 18,000 personnel are medically non-deployable), you also need mental strength as well as physical robustness. I've done RAF rather than Army Basic Training but I've got a few Army friends & it sounds like they did quite a lot of exercises that involved living in the field with little sleep so if this part of training remains the same then it probably won't make too much of difference.
The whole quote about not needing to speed march due to lessons learnt in Afghan & Iraq isn't particularly reassuring. It strikes as training for the last war you fought which is a sure way to get screwed over in a future conflict.

Reply 14

username1738683

12

It could be a way of minimising casualties andscope for litigation, we have had a few deaths and incidents in these marches. Could be a reaction to those incidents, dressed up as something else. Not much of a military point, in my opinion.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 15

OP

I have a friend who got back from army reserve training 2 days ago...I'll see what she thinks..

Reply 16

Drewski

Original post by Tempest II

I'm in two minds about this. While it's no bad thing that the Army are looking at modern sports science, especially if it means fitter soldiers, & trying to reduce injuries (circa 18,000 personnel are medically non-deployable), you also need mental strength as well as physical robustness. I've done RAF rather than Army Basic Training but I've got a few Army friends & it sounds like they did quite a lot of exercises that involved living in the field with little sleep so if this part of training remains the same then it probably won't make too much of difference.

I did RAF basic (for officers) and spent plenty of time in holes in the ground not getting enough sleep...

The whole quote about not needing to speed march due to lessons learnt in Afghan & Iraq isn't particularly reassuring. It strikes as training for the last war you fought which is a sure way to get screwed over in a future conflict.

Yes and no.

Our way of conducting operations has changed. Yes, you can argue that during the Falklands we had to send our guys on a yomp... But these days they wouldn't be deployed without armoured vehicles as they're too exposed. That would be the case no matter what the environment was in the last war.

Can you envisage a future conflict where we wouldn't give front line personnel full logistic support? Just think from a political point of view...

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Drewski

I did RAF basic (for officers) and spent plenty of time in holes in the ground not getting enough sleep...

Yes and no.

Our way of conducting operations has changed. Yes, you can argue that during the Falklands we had to send our guys on a yomp... But these days they wouldn't be deployed without armoured vehicles as they're too exposed. That would be the case no matter what the environment was in the last war.

Can you envisage a future conflict where we wouldn't give front line personnel full logistic support? Just think from a political point of view...

how much sleep would you get on average when not on exercise?

Reply 18

username1738683

12

Original post by Drewski

Can you envisage a future conflict where we wouldn't give front line personnel full logistic support? Just think from a political point of view...

Reminds me of Singapore and what political planning did for it in the war, we can never foretell where the next threat or situation is going to arise and the military stance can only be that we must be prepared for any eventuality to the best of our ability. We can't envisage anything, if only we could..

Reply 19

Drewski