Marching, (Infantry speed).
Ken S. Tucker
France,
was a claim the German army advanced 30 miles per day, which was 3x
faster than expected, and was (in part) a decisive factor in the
victory, as
it caught the French off guard, because they moved too slow.
Here's a bit of a link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching
It appears to me, that throughout history and up to WW2 an army's
rate of advance is restricted by the speed of the infantry and thus
marching (?), and also, the speed of advance (marching) is often a
decisive factor. Of course there's horses, trucks etc, but I think the
rate of advance needs the "foot-soldier".
So is the rate of 3 mph for 10 hours of marching a reasonable
claim?
Ken
Dave
> So is the rate of 3 mph for 10 hours of marching a reasonable
> claim?
Certainly, even more given weight of equipment, fitness, weather, and
terrain. But there are other factors such as the need for the
logistical train to keep up and to deal any real or perceived
resistance. A commander of the 1914-18 era and even the early 1940s
might want to avoid being attacked and cut off.Thirty miles in a day
is possible, but how about day two and day three?
William Black
Men don't march for the full hour.
They usually rest ten minutes in every hour and need meal breaks.
If you move 25 miles you're doing very well with highly trained troops,
less well trained troops will have hold-ups due to 'traffic jams' and
bad control of junctions.
Expect to lose at least 5% per day to injuries if you move that fast.
You'll need a plentiful clean water supply laid on every day and food
resupply every three days...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Shawn Wilson
> So is the rate of 3 mph for 10 hours of marching a reasonable
> claim?
So-so. 3 miles an hour is standard speed for unencumbered people on
actual roads. Infantry with their loads are far from unencumbered
though. Doing that 10 hours a day, day in and day out is *quite* a
lot. It's about double what could be expecected from regular (non-
elite) infantry for any length of time. 12 miles a day is pretty damn
standard across nations and centuries. The wear and tear accumulates
and faster rates cannot be maintained for long. 12 miles a day can be
maintained about forever.
But... 30 miles a day is almost certainly not the speed of the entire
army, but rather the advance (and motorized) elements. That's a good
speed but not unreasonable.
Don Phillipson
news:50441b4e-7ab9-42e4...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> . . . a TV show (World at War) on the Battle of Belgium-France,
> was a claim the German army advanced 30 miles per day, which was 3x
> faster than expected, and was (in part) a decisive factor in the victory .
. .
> It appears to me, that throughout history and up to WW2 an army's
> rate of advance is restricted by the speed of the infantry and thus
> marching (?), and also, the speed of advance (marching) is often a
> decisive factor. Of course there's horses, trucks etc, but I think the
> rate of advance needs the "foot-soldier".
This is why potential commanders go to staff college, to
learn how "movement orders" must be organized. If we
plan to move infantry 30 miles per day, as well as assuming
they need not to stop to fight en route, we must plan for
1. at least two hot meals, preferably three (breakfast, lunch
and supper) and resupply of drinking water, rations, worn-out
socks and boots etc.
2. This requires planning in advance for carts or trucks to
reach the mid-point and end-point of the march. This in
turn requires securing vehicles, fuel, rations and moving them.
3. When marching 10 hours a day, the soldier's day lasts at least
12 hours, probably more, because he must pack his kit and
parade before the march, must dig latrines and defensive trenches
on arrival, and then sleep adequately and reasonably comfortably
(or else he will be unfit to march another 30 miles next day.)
What was distinctive about German army advances in 1939-41
was "Blitzkrieg," the German theory of rapid victory through
the use of tanks and air superiority, as first demonstrated in
Poland. The doctrine had been developed since 1917 and
published in books in the 1930s, but still seems to have surprised
Allied generals and politicians in 1940. There was more to it
than fast feet.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
T. Fink
What nobody has mentioned so far ist that the soldiers in WW2 were much
more used to walking / marching from early youth on. My grandfather, who
went to school in the 1920s in rural Germany, walked like 12 kms every
day to go to school, aside from working on the farm after school. Being
a teacher now and knowing my students, I guess most of them are not able
to march 3kms now.
Cheers
Torsten
Michele
news:50441b4e-7ab9-42e4...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
No, of course, it isn't. Especially when you keep in mind that they were
advancing _and_ fighting. If all they did was advancing, then this could be
kept up with by very fit troops for a few days - and certainly not for a
month.
So why the claim? Easy. They said "the German army" when they actually meant
the motorized vanguards. Bottom line, don't trust TV shows.
narrl...@hotmail.com
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:50441b4e-7ab9-42e4...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
IIRC, the Kaiser's army in 1914 put in much more impressive sustained
marches in their great lunge towards Paris, and those were "marching
marches," not motorized in any way, shape, or form. Of course, it was
ultimately for naught, and led to the utter exhaustion of men and
beasts.
WW II accounts are always complicated by the motorisation question, as
others have pointe out.
Narr
Michele
news:dd08b9a3-56cf-4c58...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> IIRC, the Kaiser's army in 1914 put in much more impressive sustained
> marches in their great lunge towards Paris,
For how many days on end?
Ken S. Tucker
On Nov 5, 6:58 am, "Michele" <don'tspammeat...@tln.it> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:50441b4e-7ab9-42e4...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Well I think the TV show was ok, it's my curiousity about the "foot
soldier" marching. I looked up walkathon, and 30 miles a day looks
reasonable for a trained soldier, on roads,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkathon
Assuming most of the weight is carried by truck or carts, as I think
the German Army used going into France, the soldier was lightly
burdened(?) and could keep up that pace for a few days.
Ken
mike
> What was distinctive about German army advances in 1939-41
> was "Blitzkrieg," the German theory of rapid victory through
> the use of tanks and air superiority, as first demonstrated in
> Poland. The doctrine had been developed since 1917 and
> published in books in the 1930s, but still seems to have surprised
> Allied generals and politicians in 1940. There was more to it
> than fast feet.
Copious amounts of Benzedrine to front line troops might have
had something to do with it
**
mike
**
Jim H.
.........
> 3. When marching 10 hours a day, the soldier's day lasts at least
> 12 hours, probably more, because he must pack his kit and
> parade before the march, must dig latrines and defensive trenches
> on arrival, and then sleep adequately and reasonably comfortably
> (or else he will be unfit to march another 30 miles next day.)
>
> --
> Don Phillipson
> Carlsbad Springs
> (Ottawa, Canada)
Don't forget to allow for some form of night watch / guard duty and
its supervision, even when marching outside of the actual battle area.
That's going to cost most enlisted men and JO's an hour or more of
interruption to sleep every night or three, on some kind of rotation.
The closer to 'Indian country' you are or get, the more sleep that's
going to cost each individual.
Jim H.
Don Phillipson
> Well I think the TV show was ok, it's my curiousity about the "foot
> soldier" marching. I looked up walkathon, and 30 miles a day looks
> reasonable for a trained soldier, on roads,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkathon
>
> Assuming most of the weight is carried by truck or carts, as I think
> the German Army used going into France, the soldier was lightly
> burdened(?) and could keep up that pace for a few days.
The Wiki page appears to concern only one-day marches followed
by rest in familiar quarters (at home.) The soldier's march is
different. He is marching into unfamiliar space, thus knows:
(1) he is subject to ambush or enemy air action at any moment,
and the risk of ambush or attack increases every day;
(2) his next meal and bed tonight depend on other people,
outside his control, as does ammunition etc.
(3) He cannot rest after marching 30 miles today: he must be
ready tomorrow either for another march or to fight enemy
infantry or tanks (unless they attack tonight, while he is either
asleep or on watch.)
(4) Uncertainty is maximised because neither the infantryman
nor the commander knows what the enemy will do: neither
knows whether the march will end tomorrow or continue for
another week. (Commanders studied at staff college earlier
campaigns, as far back as Julius Caesar, when opposing
armies conducted tactical withdrawals, so as to encourage
the enemy to exhaust himself and thin out his supply lines,
so he could be more conveniently massacred: and for that
reason studied also how to detect or prevent this.)
Trish
Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz was in part due to a corps Grand Army
covering 70 miles in two days to arrive on the battlefield and then
fight. In googling around for Napoleon, I found this:
According to modern US Army doctrine, the average rate of march for
trained infantry under favorable weather conditions is 2-1/2
mph over
roads and 1 mph cross country. A normal foot march covers 20
miles
per day.
The normal pace is 30 inches (76 cm), 106 steps per minute,
for a
rate of 4 kph. In a 24 hour period, with 5-8 hours of
marching, the
normal distance traveled is 20-32 kilometers. More than 32
kms is a
forced march.
An infantry div on the march averages 12-15 miles per day, an
armored
div 100 miles per day. See:
U.S. Dept of Army. Staff Officers' Field Manual:
Organization,
Technical, and Logistical Data, Part I. FM 101-10,
Oct 1961.
pp. 123-124. FM.
_________. Foot Marches. FM 21-18, Jan 1971. p. 11.
FM.
Mike Muth
> While watching a TV show (World at War) on the Battle of Belgium-
> France,
> was a claim the German army advanced 30 miles per day, which was 3x
> faster than expected, and was (in part) a decisive factor in the
> victory, as
> it caught the French off guard, because they moved too slow.
>
> It appears to me, that throughout history and up to WW2 an army's
> rate of advance is restricted by the speed of the infantry and thus
> marching (?), and also, the speed of advance (marching) is often a
> decisive factor. Of course there's horses, trucks etc, but I think the
> rate of advance needs the "foot-soldier".
>
> So is the rate of 3 mph for 10 hours of marching a reasonable
> claim?
No. The only European units I know of who were able to sustain that
kind of speed on foot were Foreign Legion - where the standard was 50
km per day. Other infantry units usually come in under 20 miles a day
(and closer to 12-15 miles per day). Jackson's Foot Cavalry (the Army
of the Valley in 1862 in the US Civil War) got it's nickname because
it was able to sustain rates of approximately 25 miles a day.
The logistical tail tends to move more slowly than the ground
pounders. One reason Napoleon's Grand Armee was able to outmarch it's
opponents was that this tail was severely reduced. That logistical
tail was, in principle, not changed all that much for many of the
German infantry units. Sure, they had trucks, but they had a hefty
helping of horse drawn equipment. That equipment set the practical
rate of advance for a division. Horse drawn heavy artillery (150cm
guns) would likely have had a similar, or even greater drag on a
division's rate of march.
Now, the motorized formations were able to sustain 30 miles per day
against opposition and that was unthinkable to some of the staff
officers at the French and British headquarters.
--
Mike
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<0493f52e-f983-4083...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> I looked up walkathon, and 30 miles a day looks
> reasonable for a trained soldier, on roads,
No army has done much better on a regular basis than the Romans. They
considered a day's march was twenty miles which dictated the spacing of
their permanent camps. That was of course twenty Roman miles which IIRC
works out about 18 statute miles. It might be possible to march father
in a day but not without attrition. There is also the problem of
transport in 1914 the whole line of the German advance was littered with
dead and dying horses. What was important about the panzer divisions was
that they were completely motorised.
Ken Young
Michele
>>
>> > So is the rate of 3 mph for 10 hours of marching a reasonable
>> > claim?
>>
>> No, of course, it isn't. Especially when you keep in mind that they were
>> advancing _and_ fighting. If all they did was advancing, then this could
>> be
>> kept up with by very fit troops for a few days - and certainly not for a
>> month.
>>
>> So why the claim? Easy. They said "the German army" when they actually
>> meant
>> the motorized vanguards. Bottom line, don't trust TV shows.
>
> Well I think the TV show was ok, it's my curiousity about the "foot
> soldier" marching. I looked up walkathon, and 30 miles a day looks
> reasonable for a trained soldier, on roads,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkathon
>
...and not fighting. That's the main point I was making.
> Assuming most of the weight is carried by truck or carts, as I think
> the German Army used going into France, the soldier was lightly
> burdened(?) and could keep up that pace for a few days.
> Ken
FM 21-18 of the US Army, in the 1990 release, acknowledges that well trained
soldiers, moving only on roads, and of course not fighting while moving, can
cover 35 miles in a day - walking for 15 hours. It's called, unsurprisingly,
a forced march. The same manual states that a forced march can last two days
and cover 60 miles; or three days and cover 80 miles (26.6 miles per day).
After which, of course, the soldiers will need to rest. This is an emergency
measure.
Top speed per hour is suggested not to exceed 4 kph, or 2.5 mph.
As to the issue of loads, this speed can be kept up with a load of 80 lbs,
which means not just the individual soldier's combat load and provisions,
but also squad equipment.
Note that this is for a professional army of 1990, not for a mass-levied
army of 1940.
Ken S. Tucker
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:0493f52e-f983-4083...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Taken from this ref,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
(Blitzkeig section)
"On 16 May, both Guderian and Rommel disobeyed their explicit direct
orders in an act of open insubordination against their superiors. They
broke out of their bridgeheads and moved their divisions many
kilometres to the west as fast as they could push them. Guderian
reached Marle, eighty kilometres from Sedan, while Rommel crossed the
river Sambre at Le Cateau, a hundred kilometres from his bridgehead at
Dinant."
*as fast as they could push them*, so I accept a max of 30 miles/day
is reasonable for a few days of marching.
Ken
Don Phillipson
news:4af3f0f5$0$831$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...
> FM 21-18 of the US Army, in the 1990 release, acknowledges that well
> trained soldiers, moving only on roads, and of course not fighting while
> moving, can cover 35 miles in a day - walking for 15 hours. It's called,
> unsurprisingly, a forced march. The same manual states that a forced march
> can last two days and cover 60 miles; or three days and cover 80 miles
> (26.6 miles per day). After which, of course, the soldiers will need to
> rest. This is an emergency measure.
Apparently confirmed by http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00nkycn
narrating a walk along the South Downs of England by a poet (in his own
boots and not being shot at.) After walking 70 miles in three days he
was crippled by blisters.
Michele
> On Nov 6, 10:37 am, "Michele" <don'tspammeat...@tln.it> wrote:
Trying this for the second time:
>
> Taken from this ref,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
> (Blitzkeig section)
>
> "On 16 May, both Guderian and Rommel disobeyed their explicit direct
> orders in an act of open insubordination against their superiors. They
> broke out of their bridgeheads and moved their divisions many
> kilometres to the west as fast as they could push them. Guderian
> reached Marle, eighty kilometres from Sedan, while Rommel crossed the
> river Sambre at Le Cateau, a hundred kilometres from his bridgehead at
> Dinant."
>
> *as fast as they could push them*, so I accept a max of 30 miles/day
> is reasonable for a few days of marching.
> Ken
>
AFAIK, both those generals led panzer units. Thus their movements have
little to do with foot infantry marching.
Ken S. Tucker
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:487d8d1d-c2ba-4661...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Well, is this ref ok?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar#Military_career
Quoting,
"Caesar's army sometimes marched as many as 40 miles (64 km) a day."
Ken
Joe Osman
> "Michele" <don'tspammeat...@tln.it> wrote in message
>
> news:4af3f0f5$0$831$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...
>
> > FM 21-18 of the US Army, in the 1990 release, acknowledges that well
> > trained soldiers, moving only on roads, and of course not fighting while
> > moving, can cover 35 miles in a day - walking for 15 hours. It's called,
> > unsurprisingly, a forced march. The same manual states that a forced march
> > can last two days and cover 60 miles; or three days and cover 80 miles
> > (26.6 miles per day). After which, of course, the soldiers will need to
> > rest. This is an emergency measure.
>
> narrating a walk along the South Downs of England by a poet (in his own
> boots and not being shot at.) After walking 70 miles in three days he
> was crippled by blisters.
>
> --
> Don Phillipson
> Carlsbad Springs
> (Ottawa, Canada)
In 1972 in the Marines we went on 50 mile hikes every quarter. We
usually finished it in 14 hours, but were given 15. We were an Air
Control Squadron, infantry units had less miles or more time, I forget
which, but had to hand carry their crew served weapons. We were served
soup at the half way point.
Joe
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<ace34bb5-558a-447b...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Caesar's army sometimes marched as many as 40 miles (64 km) a day."
> Ken
Well if they are using Caesar as a source that would be 40 Roman Miles
not 40 statute miles. It is also noted as it was an exception to general
Roman practice and an example of the control Caesar had. As I said in
another post the standard day's march for Roman troops was 20 Roman miles.
Ken Young
aglooka
reported that they had done day marches of 32 km fr 12 days with one
restday in between.
Marches of 35km were reported.
The German army reported marches of up to 40 km/day
I guess the footwear was quite bad by todays standards and the food
also quite poor.
many greetings
Aglooka.
Michele
No, it is not OK. "Sometimes" does not tell anything about for how many
days. Military history is full with records that normally span one, two days
(Craufurd's Light Division comes to mind), maybe a week. Those are not
sustained speeds to be kept for at least three weeks.
Additionally, as I have already mentioned, marching for 64 kms is
exhausting, but possible if all you have to do is walking. The Germans in
May 1940 were advancing _and_ fighting. 64 kms are a distance to be covered
exceptionally, by means of the longest possible day journeys (maximis
itineribus), in order to react to an emergency - and the fight may be
waiting Caesar's army at the end of the march, but not _during_ the march.
For the sustained speed of Roman armies, you are looking at something like
18 to 24 Roman miles per day (24 being the absolute top when marching for
days and days). On the one hand, they would be carrying a remarkable weight,
something like 70 pounds being the minimum. On the other hand, they would
not march all day, because they would set up a fortified camp in the evening
and dismantle it at dawn.
So all in all the comparison is useless.
narrl...@hotmail.com
> <narrled...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:dd08b9a3-56cf-4c58...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > IIRC, the Kaiser's army in 1914 put in much more impressive sustained
> > marches in their great lunge towards Paris,
>
> For how many days on end?
I thought I could answer this question easily, but I haven't pinnned
it down yet. IIRC again, some units reported marching on the order of
two weeks straight . . . but neither of us should take my word for it.
Narr
Ken S. Tucker
I my late teens I went into business installing TV towers,
2-3 per day, starting about 7:30 AM to 7:30+ PM, taking
a 1/2 hour lunch, weather permitting the work was fun,
below 10F frost-bite becomes a problem for the hands,
especially if it's windy.
Most of the work involved carrying tower sections, ladder
scaling, and tower climbing so it was a lot harder than
walking.
The average effort would be about 4-5 mph walking, so
over 11 hours doing 40-50 miles in terms of marching
would be a daily routine for me, consistently, day after
day.
Obviously I was quite athletic, (I took night school, sitting
on my butt during the day drove me nutz).
The elite troops, Rommel and others possessed could
easily maintain at least a 30 mile advance per day as
the French and English fled during the Battle of France
given the armored spearhead, since I could do 40 miles
easily, I wouldn't even bother stopping for a smoke break
I just dangled the cig as a coffee break substitute.
Anyone else have personal experiences on marching?
Ken
Michele
news:939aa056-ae8c-4f60...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> The elite troops, Rommel and others possessed could
> easily maintain at least a 30 mile advance per day
Of course, as you have already been told that Rommel "possessed" a fully
motirized armored unit.
as
> the French and English fled during the Battle of France
Only that they did not just "flee". Plenty of the time, even when organized
resistance had ceased, the advancing troops had to deal with light
resistance, stragglers, enemy soldiers who wanted to surrender, demolitions
etc.
> given the armored spearhead, since I could do 40 miles
> easily, I wouldn't even bother stopping for a smoke break
> I just dangled the cig as a coffee break substitute.
>
> Anyone else have personal experiences on marching?
> Ken
>
I can do 42 kms in 4 hours, but not only I'm not carrying anything when I
do, I also don't have to worry about nasty people shooting at me or the next
bridge being possibly mined.
Dave
the task and where do they come from. Does the soldier need to carry
enough food to provide the calories or will the food be provided
enroute. After more than a day or two without enough food wouldn't the
soldier tire and be unable to fight?
Ken S. Tucker
My frame was 6' + and 135-140#'s, and I ate 2#'s and drank 3#'s,
(I'm guessing high) on an average working day, so 5#'s.
For 1000 soldiers that's only 2.5 tons of nutrition, about 1 light
truckload
per day.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
When Patton went north did any of his soldiers need to march?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton
Quote,
"When a surprise major German offensive at the Battle of the Bulge
resulted in American units being surrounded in Bastogne, Patton
rapidly disengaged his army from fighting in another sector and moved
it over 100 miles in 48 hours to relieve the siege."
Ken
John Anderton
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>When Patton went north did any of his soldiers need to march?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton
>Quote,
>"When a surprise major German offensive at the Battle of the Bulge
>resulted in American units being surrounded in Bastogne, Patton
>rapidly disengaged his army from fighting in another sector and moved
>it over 100 miles in 48 hours to relieve the siege."
I think I can say with absolute certainty that none of the soldiers
who traveled 100 miles to reach Bastogne, in 48 hours, during a
european winter, marched there.
Cheers,
John
Louis C
> Anyone else have personal experiences on marching?
First of all, 11 hours of physical effort isn't equivalent to 11 hours
of marching, except if you're on a diet and counting how many calories
you burned on that particular day (a lot).
I've been doing sailing races in which the physical effort was pretty
much non-stop for longer than that, but even though you never really
stopped there were peaks of activity and moments of relative quiet. I
don't know anything about installing TV towers, but am guessing that
you were spending time not lugging heavy equipment around but instead
assembling the various parts, connecting stuff etc.
When in the army, we were made to travel something like 110 kilometers
(70 miles) in two nights. We were mostly travelling cross-country as
roads were patrolled by officers who would kindly offer us a lift for
a few kilometers... in the wrong direction. We were carrying
backpacks, but they weren't as heavy as full battle gear except in the
end when 2-3 of us ended up carrying the whole platoon's bags so the
others could at least limp to destination.
I'm positive most of us wouldn't have been able to repeat that
performance for the next two nights.
Finally, I covered 42 kilometers in slightly over 3 hours and a half a
few months ago, but went limping for a month afterwards and I
certainly couldn't do it again today.
Armies have had centuries of experience marching soldiers, and it
looks like the distance that can be covered in a day's march for a
long time has changed remarkably little. I suggest that this
constitutes abundant statistical validation and personal anecdotes
don't really amount to validation of the opposite.
LC