STANDARDS.

Rkec

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
349
Reaction score
193
But the route there is more humane. Just as it was easier for me than it was for recruits passing out in the 80s.
I think there is another side to this. I would guess that for anyone that tapped out in the 80's, they were going back to doing some hard graft in some mine or some field (maybe not that extreme in the 80's). Whereas now, you tap out, chances are higher that they are going home to a nice parent funded warm, bed all day, sky, netflix.

The distance between hardship in RT compared to home comforts is wider than it ever has been, I think for lads that pass out today, that should be recognised as something new.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
10,619
Reaction score
12,595
My TT who had done their own RT in the 1960s never stopped banging on about how soft 1970's RT was.

Youngsters in RT today (I swore I'd never use that phrase but here I am doing so...) who are separated from their mobile devices genuinely suffer because that is the reality of their existence in 2020.

Standards aren't always on a declining trajectory; they must evolve. They can't remain static.
 

Rob20

Royal Marines Commando Moderator
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Posts
1,783
Reaction score
1,710
Quiet time for yourself and the fella above,

Would be the fact that recruits now cannot be disturbed between certain nighttime hours while on camp.

Aka no more training team members crashing into the grots at 01:00 and taking the troop down to the bottom field.

It came into being shortly after I passed out, due to an ‘incident’.

Obviously anyone who has passed out has completed the same Commando tests that I did.

But the route there is more humane. Just as it was easier for me than it was for recruits passing out in the 80s.

Sorry if this hurts anyone’s feelings.
Seen, I get you.

However, those weeks your in your grot are usually full of lectures and theory as well as phys and drill. For arguments sake, would lads perform as best as possible in these areas getting terror shaken at all hours etc or actually absorbing information and recovering as best as possible. What creates the better product?

Although, the times spent in the field are where those lessons should and are taught. Getting bumped the minute you just get in your bag after sentry for a 'extra phys' because some muppet was caught asleep on sentry. Or randomly being bumped and moving to ERV just to return to the original harbour. The field should be where lads get smashed.

In my inexperienced opinion, a fault of many bootnecks is stubborness. We're stuck in our ways. And that can limit our progress over time. Should we continue 'extra phys' nods at 3am just because we want to say our training is hardest, or should we create the best learning environment in which for lads to absorb info and use the field time to apply pressure to them?

And lets not lead any potential lads down the wrong path here, training is not easy, regardless, so don't worry about that ;)
 

Trooper149

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Posts
244
Reaction score
83
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).

As far as standards go, question must be asked: what does the situation require and what benchmarks are we going to set in order to meet those requirements. After that, can the candidate pass or fail?

If PC requires that EVERYONE gets an equal shot, guess it should be so, but that doesn't mean the candidate should be passed if they fail. So long as the metrics for success are well calibrated and the systems in place for evaluation of the candidate are 100% unbiased and minimise human error, it should be a level playing field.
 

03092014

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Posts
749
Reaction score
655
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).
Correct, you are wrong.

As far as standards go, question must be asked: what does the situation require and what benchmarks are we going to set in order to meet those requirements. After that, can the candidate pass or fail?

If PC requires that EVERYONE gets an equal shot, guess it should be so, but that doesn't mean the candidate should be passed if they fail. So long as the metrics for success are well calibrated and the systems in place for evaluation of the candidate are 100% unbiased and minimise human error, it should be a level playing field.
I think you are trying to be bit clever with your reply. You are talking about training as if it is some sort of automated process to make an object.
 

Rob20

Royal Marines Commando Moderator
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Posts
1,783
Reaction score
1,710
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).

As far as standards go, question must be asked: what does the situation require and what benchmarks are we going to set in order to meet those requirements. After that, can the candidate pass or fail?

If PC requires that EVERYONE gets an equal shot, guess it should be so, but that doesn't mean the candidate should be passed if they fail. So long as the metrics for success are well calibrated and the systems in place for evaluation of the candidate are 100% unbiased and minimise human error, it should be a level playing field.
And how do you get to the target? Unfortunately for our bodies, there is always a tactical requirement to yomp from time to time.
 

Bootra

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Posts
212
Reaction score
496
I’d guess that many people could get a grasp of soldiering, shooting targets, kicking in doors and all that. IF it was done at a leisurely pace, nice warm bed each night, lots of food and water and each skill ticked off by a computer.
However that’s not the reality of the job, and if it was done that way then it would be failing those soldiers and people would die.
The reason we do wet and dry, train in such harsh climates such as Norway, and yomp constantly, is because your body and mind need to be able to hack it. Because when it comes to Ops the rules go out of the window. You cannot wrap, because you will die, and more importantly your oppo’s will die.
Dont get me wrong, training must, and has, evolved. It shouldn’t just be a 'extra phys' from start to finishing. I don’t feel I really learnt to do the job until I was in a fighting company, training was a whirlwind and I was spat out the end. To come out of training as a complete Bootneck makes much more sense. But being a complete Bootneck involves being able to hack the hardship, that’s why those elements must always be there.
 

Former AE

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Posts
181
Reaction score
342
Just do it and drip when its over, but all the while smile and remember " You can't crack me, I'm a rubber duck !"
 

Apex

Former RM Commando
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Posts
70
Reaction score
142
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).

As far as standards go, question must be asked: what does the situation require and what benchmarks are we going to set in order to meet those requirements. After that, can the candidate pass or fail?

If PC requires that EVERYONE gets an equal shot, guess it should be so, but that doesn't mean the candidate should be passed if they fail. So long as the metrics for success are well calibrated and the systems in place for evaluation of the candidate are 100% unbiased and minimise human error, it should be a level playing field.
Christ, you could send a glass eye to sleep.
Have you even had enough time in training to get some scuff marks on your first tin of boot polish? Clearly you have no idea of what RM training is all about. I can actually tell from your attitude and tone already that you wouldn’t pass. Seriously your character of answering back, thinking your clever and immaturity all smacks of someone who would fold at the first ex. Top tip, wind your next in when talking back to serving Commandos like Rob. You know nothing.
 

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,456
Reaction score
1,961
Until the day that wars are fought by sitting in an ISO container in leafy Hampshire with phenomenally clear imagery and watching live developments in an operational war zone arrive there will be a need to yomp....... oh wait....



Taxi!
 

johnnyaged5

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
19
Reaction score
11
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).
.
Just my opinion -
Yomping and certainly speedmarching are essential skills in the bootnecks arsenal, it's the ability to be self sufficient and cover that distance with the required kit and more importantly, be fit for combat at the end of it. Yomping builds mental fortitude and certainly breaks the weak.

There is an operational requirement to be able to carry the kit for long distances.
 

Rob20

Royal Marines Commando Moderator
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Posts
1,783
Reaction score
1,710
Christ, you could send a glass eye to sleep.
Have you even had enough time in training to get some scuff marks on your first tin of boot polish? Clearly you have no idea of what RM training is all about. I can actually tell from your attitude and tone already that you wouldn’t pass. Seriously your character of answering back, thinking your clever and immaturity all smacks of someone who would fold at the first ex. Top tip, wind your next in when talking back to serving Commandos like Rob. You know nothing.
I choked on my cheese toastie reading this. Thankyou for today's dose of morale
 

Caversham

Former RM Commando, Moderator
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Posts
5,567
Reaction score
8,762
Seems that while it is good to aim for an ideal, you have to calibrate this with that the situation requires. Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological. Thus, it makes more sense to train troops in their sheer capacity to deploy quickly, take down doors and clear rooms than yomp for miles to a rendezvous point (correct me if I am wrong).
My bold.

Yes you are wrong. Look at recent Corps' history and you will discover that in 1982 45 Commando yomped for around 60 miles tactically, carrying weights of up to 100lb plus per man due to their helicopters being sunk on the Atlantic Conveyor. They had no prior training for this and in fact had been cooped up on a ship for 3 weeks or more before landing. At the end of the yomp they then fought the battle of Two Sisters, suffering 8 dead and 17 wounded.

Compare that with a particular Army Regiment who refused to get off a ship and tab 7 -8 miles and demanded landing craft to save their legs. That decision cost 48 lives and many more injured.

Alan
 

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,456
Reaction score
1,961
I choked on my cheese toastie reading this. Thankyou for today's dose of morale
You can always rely on the Old & Bold!!

Subtle as a sledgehammer.

Yomping (Or tabbing if you are that way inclined) is a key element. I’ll always remember a big gym queen on a course I attended. He had arms the size of thighs and could bench press an aircraft carrier, but did no cardio work and was blown out after 2 miles of a yomp.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
10,619
Reaction score
12,595
Warfare these days is less about covering ground and invading enemy territory. It's more covert, sporadic and technological.
Intelligence-led deployment of technology has not yet replaced boots on the ground dominating the terrain.
From what I've read about the Op Herrick campaigns this remains as true now as it was at Agincourt in 1415.

I wasn't on Op Corporate in 1982 but the monumental yomps and tabs were often last resort movements because the promised air transport assets weren't available or weren't appropriate. When the SS Atlantic Conveyor was sunk three Chinook and six Wessex choppers were destroyed. Logistics failures can change everything.
 

Apex

Former RM Commando
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Posts
70
Reaction score
142
I choked on my cheese toastie reading this. Thankyou for today's dose of morale
Fire mission over,

One round fire for effect

Shot fired at one times young civvie

Take no heed trooper, nothing personal meant from an ole cabbage head. I’m nearly 70 years old, but once a Royal always a Royal and I can’t help but have a bit of craic with you. No harm meant lad. But yes, you are wrong. Many historians felt that British success down south was linked to the Corps fantastic tactical ability to yomp across the difficult Falklands terrain with their kit. After disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines and members of the stinky Parachute Regiment yomped with their fighting order across the islands, covering 56 miles in three days carrying 80-pound loads. They were supposed to be transported by helicopters, but after the Atlantic Conveyor, which carried the helicopters, was sunk by Argentinian Exocet missiles on 25 May I think, the soldiers had to march on land. I understand that British Army infantry soldiers and Royal Marines in Afghanistan conducted four-hour patrols carrying an average of 110 lb of kit, going into battle with that weight if they encountered enemy fighters. Moving with weight over long range is the backbone of soldiering. It is a core of infantry soldiering. To put the weights issue into some form of perspective. In training I weighed about 140lbs.
On the bottom field we had to carry an oppo, of similar size, 200m in 2 minutes.

Oppo 140lbs, plus webbing and rifle (35lbs) = 175lbs.
Own webbing and rifle 35lbs.
Total = 210lbs.

I can't speak for anyone else but after 200m, I was a tad close to collapse. In clean fatigue, most of us could walk 100m per minute for long distances. So you’ve got to take your hit of to those blokes down south. Toppers.

Yours Aye,

Pete.
 
Last edited:
Top