I noticed the distinction about brawn after I posted. Apologies. But, your personal example is a bit moot if the guy was body building instead of some kind of appropriate goal oriented, and structured training. And I know the exercises that SEALs and Force guys do is endurance-heavy, but I think that they emphasize endurance too much to the detriment of their personnel.
Recon's primary mission is R&S which requires a long distance to move, under load, from insert to OP, and both SEALs and Recon need the capacity for self-propelled (i.e. swimming) amphibious insert, although that method of insert is increasingly less likely due to the severe limitations it imparts (in terms of timeliness/location of insert and the lack of effective equipment they can bring, compromise, etc.). Standard infantry guys (according to the T&R manual) should be able to move 25 miles with a combat load in under 8 hours in order to "turn the enemy's flank," but I also question the validity of this capacity as well. And much less of this applies to the guys in armored units who need the ability to change heavy mechanical parts under adverse conditions in a timely manner (which raises the idea of different physical training standards for different MOS's, but that's another discussion).
You're right about putting rounds accurately on target, and quick movement from cover to cover, but if you're moving in excess of 800 m from cover to cover (unless you're in defilade) then you're just going to get shot. Additionally, the idea of obstacles on a predominantly urban (or even rural with houses, fences, and canals like Afghanistan) environment requires sufficient upper body strength to negotiate obstacles while also moving quickly. Appropriate bounding movements are typically 10's of meters. These are all distances and abilities that can be optimally accomplished by guys who's training is more tailored towards rugby or football rather than guys training for soccer. Obviously, football and rugby training would not necessarily be best, only that the strength emphasis would be beneficial and that the best model would be closer to football/rugby than it would to soccer.
I think the daily 25 mile hike example is a little misleading. This is actually patrolling, which is the slowest tactical movement on the spectrum (patrolling, assault, movement to contact) and it should be slow to maintain situational awareness and cover more ground. That being sad, the load is lighter than the traditional hike with the main ILBE. Water, 1-2 MREs, radioes, batteries, PPE, possibly a sleep system, weapons and ammo are all heavy, of course, but the purpose is generally to engage the locals, look for IEDs or set in an ambush, all of which should be performed slowly. Engagements with the enemy are more similiar to short sprints than it is to a timed 25 mile hike. I think more emphasis on the higher intensity training with the occassional long movement under load would offer a better conditioned soldier/sailor/Marine, than the traditional, lots of running and hiking and discouraging of weight training.
The movement to contact, which is the fastest tactical movement, was how we invaded Iraq. This was a very fast and long-distance movement. But, not surprisingly, it was not executed on foot. We averaged 45 kph on most days because we used vehicles, mounted troops and Light Armored Reconnaisance vehicles to maintain contact with the enemy and keep him on his heels. This would not be possible with a mostly foot-bound military, so I don't really see the necessity for maintaining the 25 mile/8 hour capacity...
I think we both agree that excessive muscle (as with hypertrophy-focused, bodybuilding) is detrimental (although we could discuss if excess muscle was even possible with a properly-structured PT program) and that someone in the military now who can deadlift 400, squat 345, and press 145 is probably doing all right; I'm merely saying that with properly structured programming the average guy could be stronger with better job performance. I just don't think that more endurance training is the right answer (although I would (and have) recommend someone train endurance to succeed at BUD/S, ARS, or BRC mostly because of how the schools are structured currently).


Reply With Quote

Bookmarks