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. 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
On Nov 4, 10:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> 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?
Dave wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> 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?
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.
On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> 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.
> . . . 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)
> 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. > 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
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.
> 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. > 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?
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.
> > 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. > > 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?
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
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.
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> ha scritto nel messaggionews:50441b4e-7ab9-42e4-9300-2ae022d98519@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > 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?
> 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
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
On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> 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
On Nov 4, 4:54 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote: .........
> 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'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.
> 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.)
-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
I remembered this and just checked wikipedia for what it's worth-- 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.
> 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. > 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?
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.
In article <0493f52e-f983-4083-8b73-3ec20c630...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote:
> 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.
>> > 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.
> >> > 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.
"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
> 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.
-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
> "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.
> > "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.
> > 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 byhttp://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.
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.
In article <ace34bb5-558a-447b-989f-dffe565ea...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote:
> "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.
In WWI British troops (BEF) retraeting fo the German first ary 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.
>> > "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.
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.
|
