# Unit PT - Best Practices



## SeanPaul_031 (20 Mar 2006)

Is Pt in batalliion done on your own time or is it done as a platoon/unit. Can you do your own weight lifting program or do you have to do Pt w/ your platoon commander?


----------



## MikeL (20 Mar 2006)

You can do your own PT an lift weights on your own time. First thing in the morning(mon-fri) you will do PT either as a Battalion or Company/Platoon.


----------



## SeanPaul_031 (20 Mar 2006)

Thanks. Is the morning Pt slack or done pretty much the same as battle school


----------



## 45B (2 May 2006)

I think Battle School PTs are pretty slack too!


----------



## paracowboy (2 May 2006)

I can't speak for any unit other than 3 RCR or 3 VP, but in those two, PT is not slack. Battle School PT is.

I lift weights either during lunch, or after work hours. Some of the troops get slow time during the day, and they head to the gym here. It's fairly easy since 3VP has a better gym than most Bases.


----------



## Fusaki (2 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I can't speak for any unit other than 3 RCR or 3 VP, but in those two, PT is not slack. Battle School PT is.



+1 to that.

Every time a new course comes in from Meaford they say they're suprised that when compared to Battleschool the intensity of the PT actually goes up in Battalion, not down. Of course, there are times in Battalion when PT falls by the wayside due to exercises or other tasks, but when we're in garrison we give'r. The smart ones do their best keep in shape on their own time when their unit is doing field work... You just _know_ that as soon as you're back in garrison you'll have a young 2LT right off his Phase 4 show up as your new Platoon Commander and run you into the ground. :-\


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (2 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I can't speak for any unit other than 3 RCR or 3 VP, but in those two, PT is not slack. Battle School PT is.
> 
> I lift weights either during lunch, or after work hours. Some of the troops get slow time during the day, and they head to the gym here. It's fairly easy since 3VP has a better gym than most Bases.



That gives me tingles  ;D

Im what you might call a work out-aholic...  ???


----------



## Rubes (7 May 2006)

How long is the average run in battalion?


----------



## paracowboy (7 May 2006)

Rubes said:
			
		

> How long is the average run in battalion?


as long as the guy leading it wants it to be. You will go as fast as he does. You will stop when he does.

Don't worry about it. Simply get into the best shape you can, shut your brain off, and place one foot in front of the other.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (7 May 2006)

PT in Battle school is alot easier then Battalion,  I am not a runner by anymeans, and here in 1 RCR every run nearly kills me...lol,  We run on Mondays and wensdays, Ruck on tuesdays and thursdays....Most runs for us are probably anywhere from 8-10 km, and the shorter runs are just as hard because they speed the pace up considerably. Get  into the best shape you can, 


Pro Patria


----------



## MdB (9 May 2006)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> You just _know_ that as soon as you're back in garrison you'll have a young 2LT right off his Phase 4 show up as your new Platoon Commander and run you into the ground. :-\



If Battleschool PT is more slack than battalion's, how could a 2Lt fresh out of Ph. 4 run you into the ground?


----------



## Fusaki (9 May 2006)

> If Battleschool PT is more slack than battalion's, how could a 2Lt fresh out of Ph. 4 run you into the ground?



Officers don't do Battleschool. I'm not sure what all their courses are called or what they consist of, but when they get to Battalion they're usually near the top of their platoon when it comes to physical fitness. A new officer may not have that much experience, but PT is a good way to gain the respect of the troops. It's all part of leading by example.

Technically, new NCMs don't do Battleschool either. The RCR (and I assume the other Regiment's) Battleschool  was disbanded in 1996, and the new courses have undergone a few name changes since. These days, "Battleschool" is more of an unofficial term to describe the SQ and BIQ courses.


----------



## MdB (9 May 2006)

Alright! I'm gonna be top shape if I can get through all the phases... 8)

Here's the track:
Phase I: IAP/BOTP, St. Jean, QC
Phase II: CAP, Gagetown, NB
Phase III: Basic Infantry Officer Training I (BIOT), Gagetown, NB
Phase IV: Basic Infantry Officer Training II (BIOT), Gagetown, NB

Training at Gagetown is given by CIC for Infantry Officers to be.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 May 2006)

MdB said:
			
		

> Alright! I'm gonna be top shape if I can get through all the phases... 8)
> 
> Here's the track:
> Phase I: IAP/BOTP, St. Jean, QC
> ...



I think you mean CTC and not CIC.

CIC=Cadet Instructors Cadre
CTC= Combat Training Center


----------



## MdB (9 May 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> I think you mean CTC and not CIC.
> 
> CIC=Cadet Instructors Cadre
> CTC= Combat Training Center



Yeah, blood clot in the brain, thas all.  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 May 2006)

lol, thought so   ;D


----------



## fonfon40 (31 May 2006)

MdB said:
			
		

> Alright! I'm gonna be top shape if I can get through all the phases... 8)
> 
> Here's the track:
> Phase I: IAP/BOTP, St. Jean, QC
> ...



Can anyone provide the drop-out rate for each phases in infantry school for infantry officer.

Thanks.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2006)

No!

No. As it will vary from year to year; Course to Course; Instructors to Instructors.


----------



## Highland Laddie (1 Jun 2006)

fonfon40 said:
			
		

> Can anyone provide the drop-out rate for each phases in infantry school for infantry officer.
> 
> Thanks.



Can't say for today, I went through in the mid 1990's. We started Phase II with around 120, and ended Phase III the next summer with around fifty to sixty.  Then again, the word's "Gagetown" and "Phase" don't seem to make people involuntarily shudder like they used too....


----------



## 9Tiger9 (30 Sep 2006)

the drop out rate wasnt that bad this summer, we were 60, and we only lost 2 to trg failieurs, and 4 med's, 1 vr on cap, the phase 3 wasn't as bad i think on most courses there ws between 5-7 rtu's and phase 4 was only 2 rtu's i believe. Its not a mental game like st.jean you just have to be able to learn what they teach you quickly and hope to god your not on a franco course, I did my iap and botch franco and it was harder inmo, I was happy to be on an anglo course.


----------



## Garett (7 Oct 2006)

Don't get wrapped up in numbers, it varies from year to year and platoon to platoon.  One number I'll give you is 99% don't know what they're getting themselves into.  PT and mental toughness are the keys to success.


----------



## Haligonian (8 Sep 2018)

PT is back on the minds of sr leaders of 2 CMBG.  It's something the Bde Comd wants to reinvigorate and he's engaging CO's on it on a regular basis on wants regular returns on what unit PT plans are.

I've been putting some thought into this and I sent an email to my boss the other day on the topic.  A couple things came to me:

1.  The importance of incentives.  The CAF is really bad at this and I think its why we've seen our standards drop across the force.  The last thing I saw was that plans to make incentives for Gold and Platinum levels on the FORCE test at merit boards still hadn't gone through and that the CDS was not comfortable going forward with it.  I think public recognition is important in terms of building culture by placing high performers on a pedestal but they should also get something they value personally like time off or a chit at the kit shop/canteen.  I also considered linking it to individual PT, which bring me to my next point...

2.  I think identifying an individual PT day would be good.  This will not be good for our lowest performers but the majority of units would appreciate the privilege of having a day for individual PT that many sr NCO's and most officers enjoy in some form.  Perhaps the incentive of achieving Gold or Platinum is an individual PT day or two.  I kind of wonder sometimes if we wouldn't be better off just establishing standards and allowing people to just do their own PT the majority of the time.  I'd love to experiment with this for a 2-3 month period.  The question is do we have enough of the right people in line units for this approach.  My experience from deployments, specifically as an OC on REASSURANCE was that my guys took a lot pride in their PT, PT levels were raised significantly, and their results were predominantly because of their individual efforts.  The Coy's PT plan intentionally accounted for the fact that guys would have their own PT goals and so normal morning PT was generally something lighter, knowing guys would be busting it out in the gym later that day.

3.  I think establishing standards outside the CAF standard would be a good idea, something like the Coopers Test, the Army Fitness manual standards, or some of our SOF standards maybe.  Everyone would need to acknowledge that you couldn't place people on remedial measures for it but it could be a tool for establishing culture.  I think there would be a lot of power in a CO and OC's standing before their units saying "This is what I want you to achieve because that's what I think we need to be effective at our jobs."  Or something to that effect.

4.  One thing I've disagreed with a few people on over the past few days in the value of group PT like runs and ruck marches.  While these often end up only bringing up the fitness of the lowest performers I see the value from a cohesion, discipline, and culture, perspective.  I was very happy to hear my CSM and one of my WO's moving up and down the line maintaining march discipline during our run the other day and ensuring that stragglers kept running vice just giving up.  This is a great time for NCOs to be NCOs and maintain discipline, something we seem to be losing.  It also means they must be fit and set the example.

Does anyone out there have some great best practices for PT done within units or just general thoughts on where we need to be going with PT within our units?


----------



## BC Old Guy (8 Sep 2018)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> Does anyone out there have some great best practices for PT done within units or just general thoughts on where we need to be going with PT within our units?



I don't know if these are best practices, but are some that I thought were helpful in the (distant) past.

-If there is an individual PT day as part of the Unit/Coy PT plan, the effects will be better if the individuals provide their own plan, to be reviewed by the leadership, with a view to improving specific elements of fitness.  For sub-par performers, this could be dictated, perhaps with input from physical fitness experts- PSP or in the unit.

-At the coy level, look at dividing into 2 or more groups at times, with the aim of challenging those with better fitness.  The better fit leadership would need to rotate supervising the lesser fit group.  

-Incentives could include something as simple as the OC's Commendation, presented at a Coy gathering, and be as simple as a certificate with the Coy emblem/symbol, date, and signed off by the OC and CSM, and a note-to-file on the Pers file (the official file, as well as any shadow file used in the unit).  I expect you are already recognizing exemplary fitness on the PER.

BCOG


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2018)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> PT is back on the minds of sr leaders of 2 CMBG.  It's something the Bde Comd wants to reinvigorate and he's engaging CO's on it on a regular basis on wants regular returns on what unit PT plans are.
> 
> I've been putting some thought into this and I sent an email to my boss the other day on the topic.  A couple things came to me:
> 
> 1.  The importance of incentives.  The CAF is really bad at this and I think its why we've seen our standards drop across the force.  The last thing I saw was that plans to make incentives for Gold and Platinum levels on the FORCE test at merit boards still hadn't gone through and that the CDS was not comfortable going forward with it.  I think public recognition is important in terms of building culture by placing high performers on a pedestal but they should also get something they value personally like time off or a chit at the kit shop/canteen.  I also considered linking it to individual PT, which bring me to my next point...



It will always fail if:

-The Officers take the easy way out and don't attend, or carry less weight etc.
-Bn HQ tries to mandate/ control everything
-You try to ramp up 'the standard' too fast
-You only do one kind of PT (ruck marches, gym work etc)
-You have to do PT all the time together as a unit and have no latitude to do your own thing

A good routine we had in garrison was to do a Bn 10 miler every Friday PM carrying fighting order, rucks and rifles, leading up to a monthly Bn 10 miler carrying Sp Wpns as well. The CO was always at the front, then A, B, C, with Sp & HQ sprinkled throughout e.g., Bn Sigs, MFC teams, Milan dets marched with Rifle Coys they would work with on FTX. After the weekly tab, all troops stood down for the weekend.

The Rifle Coys had to manage their own PT schedules to match that requirement, which included various runs, gym sessions etc. Coy FTXs/range days during the week always involved marching out/back etc.

Wednesday sports afternoons were focused on 'battle aligned' sports during inter-Coy competitions. We did things like boxing, orienteering and cross country running, as well as rugby/footie, which also matched up to various Army level competitions as an incentive for the good performers to move on up if they wanted. Golf and trampoline were not an option. Everyone had to participate in some kind of sport.

If we were deploying on ops to an urban area e.g., Belfast, we added more assault course/ gym type work to build upper body and short term sprint fitness for dealing out the pain during any riots, or engaging the pond life in any impromptu 'Parkour' contests, as required.

Being a 'Light' Bn, we covered hundreds of miles on foot during FTXs as well, which was a good incentive to stay fit, especially in the rifle coys


----------



## Haligonian (8 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> -You have to do PT all the time together as a unit and have no latitude to do your own thing



Daft, I had a feeling you'd weigh in on this.  Did the CO and OC's consistently attend sect and platoon PT as opposed to doing their own thing those days?


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2018)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> Daft, I had a feeling you'd weigh in on this.  Did the CO and OC's consistently attend sect and platoon PT as opposed to doing their own thing those days?



Ha! The Kool Aid guy has spoken.... 

The CO, OCs, RSM, CSMs etc would join in with the Pl/Coy level fitness training during the 'non-Bn' PT sessions on a fairly regular basis. For example, it was pretty common to see the CO tabbing along with the Coys during occasional weekly sessions (with dog, as per SOP). 

Our Bde Comd would turn up sometimes too (again, with dog FFS  ). He was also a first class orienteering competitor, and kept me and my team on our toes!

If we were working up for something big, they'd be there more often.


----------



## cld617 (8 Sep 2018)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> 3.  I think establishing standards outside the CAF standard would be a good idea, something like the Coopers Test, the Army Fitness manual standards, or some of our SOF standards maybe.  Everyone would need to acknowledge that you couldn't place people on remedial measures for it but it could be a tool for establishing culture.  I think there would be a lot of power in a CO and OC's standing before their units saying "This is what I want you to achieve because that's what I think we need to be effective at our jobs."  Or something to that effect.



Wholeheartedly agree with this, the current incentive standards are simply not representative of military fitness requirements. If you're one of the few guys who gets platinum, then it's safe to say that yes you're of exemplary fitness, however this can only be accomplished through mastering all events. The issue arises when you have overweight mbrs who can put out for a minute at a time and achieve Gold, all the while having underwhelming aerobic fitness levels which would have been captured with something like the beep test or timed runs. A true test of fitness requires the measurement of multiple facets of fitness, and racing through this test has simply become a measure of anaerobic performance and speed & power.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Wholeheartedly agree with this, the current incentive standards are simply not representative of military fitness requirements. If you're one of the few guys who gets platinum, then it's safe to say that yes you're of exemplary fitness, however this can only be accomplished through mastering all events. The issue arises when you have overweight mbrs who can put out for a minute at a time and achieve Gold, all the while having underwhelming aerobic fitness levels which would have been captured with something like the beep test or timed runs. A true test of fitness requires the measurement of multiple facets of fitness, and racing through this test has simply become a measure of anaerobic performance and speed & power.



We need to increase the emphasis on collective/ Team Fitness vs. doing individual tests. 

Only dead people do things alone in battle.


----------



## cld617 (8 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We need to increase the emphasis on collective/ Team Fitness vs. doing individual tests.
> 
> Only dead people do things alone in battle.



Are you suggesting we test groups instead of individuals? I'm all for group efforts, but there is no rationale argument to remove testing an individuals performance.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Sep 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Wholeheartedly agree with this, the current incentive standards are simply not representative of military fitness requirements. If you're one of the few guys who gets platinum, then it's safe to say that yes you're of exemplary fitness, however this can only be accomplished through mastering all events. The issue arises when you have overweight mbrs who can put out for a minute at a time and achieve Gold, all the while having underwhelming aerobic fitness levels which would have been captured with something like the beep test or timed runs. A true test of fitness requires the measurement of multiple facets of fitness, and racing through this test has simply become a measure of anaerobic performance and speed & power.



Maybe running isn't as important as you think it is


----------



## cld617 (9 Sep 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Maybe running isn't as important as you think it is



Maybe running isn't, but it's probably the easiest test for a mbrs aerobic fitness you can conduct. There's a reason it's first in nearly every fitness guide in the Forces in terms of prioritizing training.


----------



## ballz (9 Sep 2018)

It's a tough nut to crack, as no person responds to the same thing. Some people are motivated by shame, others are motivated by rewards. Group PT hurt some people, and helps others. 

Establishing a culture that values physical fitness and conducting PT _consistently_ is perhaps the foundation. You can put all the plans, incentives, etc in place, they will always get pushed aside if the culture values something else more (like creating administration and spreadsheet returns). 

Our leadership generally lacks the creativity required to improve such things. Let's look at that one time when a certain OC H Coy tried to create a better culture of physical fitness by challenging the idea that members should always be in combats by 0930. The idea was ridiculed and, despite what I would argue as successful, eventually put to an end by a junk DCO who was very offended by the idea that H Coy members were now doing PT twice a day but that meant staying in PT kit until lunch. I mean, FFS, Gagetown won't let you wear headphones during PT when you're out doing your own PT... what a joke.

We artificially limit the solutions. We've been having the same arguments about incentives, group vs individual PT (an unwinnable argument for either side), over and over again without any new ideas. This is no different than most other training.

So in saying that, some ideas... not necessarily super creative.

For group PT...
Towards the end of my time as a Pl Comd, we established a few set routes. A medium (6km), a long (10km), and a longer (13km). Our platoon runs no longer involved running as a group. We met up behind the bldg, hit the trails, and then everyone broke off and ran the route *at their own pace.* This was important for a few reasons... 

1. Those who were above the average were not held back, getting very little out of the run. They could run the 10km in 40m if that was what fancied them.

2. Those who were below the average probably benefit the most. If we wanted someone that is physically weak to bench press 300 lbs, we wouldn't load 300 lbs on the bar and yell at them harder to make them lift it. This is such a stupid military mentality and all it does is cause those who are not able to keep up to find reasons to miss PT. For those who were crap at running, I just wanted them to be consistent. Consistency will improve their aerobic capacity far more than anything else. Beasting them 3 times a week will not achieve consistency. Letting them run at a comfortable pace will achieve consistency. The best endurance athletes in the world train with a heart rate monitor and it doesn't make them work harder, it actually forces them to be disciplined and *slow down.* This ensures they are improving the correct energy systems (fat) and it also ensures that they will not miss training sessions due to fatigue (physical or mental). They know that over the long run, consistently training at a moderate effort is better than inconsistently training at maximum efforts.

***A note here on lack of creativity... this isn't very "creative" but I still had a certain Coy 2IC try telling me I couldn't do it. It's not safe, apparently, to let trained infanteers to run on the trails unsupervised. I told that Coy 2IC to go pound sand... but it just goes to show the kind of barriers our lack of creativity and non-transformational culture creates for itself.

For standards / incentives, I had created a platoon standard. 
A 5km run < 23m
Pull-ups @ minimum 7  (IIRC... whatever the basic para test requires)
Bench press @ bodyweight.... using 5 reps to estimate your 1 RM
Squat @ 1.5x bodyweight.... using 5 reps to estimate your 1 RM
Deadlight @ 2x bodyweight.... using 5 reps to estimate your 1 RM

So what that translates into for a 200lb person is...
A 5km run < 23m
Pull-ups @ minimum 7
Bench press ... 175 for 5 reps
Squat... 265 for 5 reps
Deadlight... 350 for 5 reps

If you could meet the standard, the CO at the time agreed that he would approve 2 short days. The plan was to run the testing once every 2 months. In hindsight, another good measure would have been to post the scores in the Platoon office. Ranked top to bottom, for every event. The Pl Comd or SNCOs should not be exempt from this.

When I implemented this standard, I started running PT this way...

Monday / Wednesday... Cardio days... we'd do one of those runs as I indicated earlier.
Tues / Thurs... Strength training... We met at the fitness centre, everyone did their own workout. It was mandatory that it be strength training of some sort. This could be a circuit, or it could be power lifting, I didn't care... but I had better not see you on a treadmill, etc.
I did get PSP to run some classes on how to properly do compound lifts, but honestly I was shocked by just how shitty many of our troops were at the lifts and it proved to me that the reason they weren't good runners wasn't because they were spending too much time in the gym...
This achieved the goals of group PT (Making sure people were showing up and not ******* off to Tim Hortons) but also gave individuals a goal (the standard) and the flexibility to work on their weaknesses instead of me being over-prescriptive in how and what they did.

Fridays was nothing... this was a 2 RCR ism that I had no ability to change... one I think should be challenged. This is a cultural thing. 2 RCR says its for maintenance, but let's be serious... it's because 2 RCR values going home at 1:30pm on Fridays more than it values PT



			
				Haligonian said:
			
		

> just general thoughts on where we need to be going with PT within our units?



"What's the difference between what a soldier does and what an Olympic athlete does?"
The answer... when soldiers lose, the consequences are much greater.

So why don't we train like olympic athletes? This is not just for PT... this is for PT, for CQC, for marksmanship, for urban ops, for gunnery, etc. Before I joined the army, I thought I'd get to Battalion and during Garrison times.... I'd do PT, I'd do an hour or two of urban ops drills, I'd take lunch, I'd do an hour or two of marksmanship training. 5 days a week... small 1-2 hour blocks of training on a topic, consistently.

In reality, we treat Garrison as an 8-4 office job which happens to start with PT 4 out of 5 days a week. We spend 3-4 weeks in September/October doing a mockery of stand training called IBTS and a mockery of marksmanship training called PWT3.


----------



## ballz (9 Sep 2018)

I love combatives, but this is an important talk / discussion regarding changing culture... in happens to focus on using combatives as an example, but the bigger message is what levers leadership can pull to create the culture they need.

*Matt Larsen, the "Father of Modern Army Combatives," on How to Build Warriors*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnaVNAj7YLQ


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2018)

Great thread, and many great pieces of information shared above.  I'll offer some thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

1.  The first question is "why be fit?"  That should help define "best practices."  I'd offer that we desire fitness in the military for two reasons.  One is the build physical resilience for operational duties.  The second is to reduce the administrative drag of having unfit members.

With this in mind, I'll propose some assumptions:

1a.  Better physical fitness leads to better physical resilience due to increased strength, endurance, and aerobic and anaerobic capacity.
1b.  Better physical resilience leads to better mental resilience due to increased capacity to handle physical duress in stressful/demanding situations.
1c.  Physically fit people will be prone to fewer health issues - the fewer physically unfit people, the fewer non-deployable/non-employable people.
1d.  Physically fit can be defined many ways - it's like porn; you know it when you see it.  I always thought crossfit (whatever one's thoughts of the enterprise) offered a reasonable explanation of what it means to be fit.

2.  So, we want fit people.  How fit?  What kind of fit?  I'd argue this consists of two things.

2a.  Military fitness.  This is being fit enough to meet universality of service.  Its the basic standard.  I think the FORCE Test is a good gauge, but that the minimum standards are too low.  There are some clearly unfit people in the CAF that can pass the FORCE test.  Perhaps retooling it as more of a "course" (like the RCMP) with minimum standards increased would help drive the minimum.
2b.  Occupational fitness.  This is being fit enough to do your job.  Infantry guys always gripe about unfit military members, but we need to remember that not everyone needs to do the infantry's job.  Some occupations should be free to institute a fitness test that tests for bona fide occupational standards.  This should be done in an operational setting - eg. an infantry occupation test should involve a series of field tasks and not doing chin-ups in sneakers and shorts.  The Australian Army has moved to this, with their Infantry Corps having its own Corps PT test.  The United States Marine Corps demands all Marines complete two tests annual - a Physical Fitness Test in PT gear and a Combat Fitness Test done in combat dress (although no gear).

3.  The CAF as an institution should promote military fitness.  I've long argued and still believe that a grading on a revamped FORCE test to count for PER points would go a long way.  When it comes to career enhancements, people will put the extra work in.  Look how many people take time to work on their second official language when we award points for increased capacity to use it.

4.  The Army should promote occupational fitness much in the way Comd 2 CMBG is doing.  There are many ways to do so, but the center of gravity will be a unit CO, and what he or she does in the form of guidance and directions to the sub-units.  Guidance to me should reflect a few things:

4a.  As Ballz says, consistency is the key.  Consistency can be achieved by planning and sharing the information.  Battalion routine must guard PT time ruthlessly to ensure consistency can happen.  Setting objectives in blocks (say, between end XMas leave and the next field exercise) when planning PT can also help.  Schedules must be made to ensure consistency and avoid "slip offs"
4b.  Ballz also alluded to the importance of mixing things up.  This is critical for "Infantry Occupational Fitness" or "Army Occupational Fitness" and also important to stop PT from becoming such a chore.  Guidance from the CO or OC on mixing things up is probably useful and worth doing.  Ballz PT calendar above was simple, easy to program, and is probably a good example of how to do things.
4c.  "Combat PT" (for lack of a better term) is pretty important.  We need to program some time to do PT in boots, combat uniforms, and possibly some equipment.  Aerobic exercise in boots, properly done to avoid injury, is great for increasing operational fitness.  I like Daft's old Para Friday routine.  He is also right on collective PT vice individual PT.  It is easy to get a good exercise as a group in combat boots by simply running the obstacle course a few times.
4d.  The platoon/troop is "where the magic happens" with PT.  The group is small enough that where the Platoon Commander can keep track of everyone, ensure everyone is challenged, and select the right level of program.  Sub-unit or unit PT is good, but should be applied sparingly; once a week is probably good, twice at most, but not too often, as we don't want to take away from the flexibility of the platoon commanders.  As well, if the CO or OC are leading the PT all the time, Platoon Commanders will not learn how to develop good PT programs for their troops. 
4e.  People will get injured.  It will happen.  Unfortunately, at times, we are too busy in the unit to pay attention to injured folks.  What is worse is when people get injured because they're fitness level is low.  Even worse is when injured people use "PT at own pace" to slough recovery off.  It isn't always the case, but we humans are all inherently lazy at times, and we must build in safeguards.  A CO would be wise to appoint an NCO or two (perhaps from his or her tac CP) to act as the unit Recovery NCO.  If members are on light duties, they report to the recovery NCO for unit PT.  He or she can take the time to PT with those folks within their limitations to ensure they are going in the right direction.

My  :2c:


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Fridays was nothing... this was a 2 RCR ism that I had no ability to change...



That's silly.  In the units I was in, Friday was "long PT day," and leaders had between 0800-1200 to conduct PT.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Sep 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting we test groups instead of individuals? I'm all for group efforts, but there is no rationale argument to remove testing an individuals performance.



Yes. 

In war, the enemy will test our units far harder than we can in peacetime. And no one fights alone, unless you're a pilot, or Rambo, of course 

Therefore, we are probably negligent if we don't test them ourselves first. In addition to individual tests, we should run unit/sub-unit/ sub-sub-unit battle fitness tests, oriented towards the specific needs of our arm or service, and reward the winners while punishing the losers in some way. You know, before the enemy does it for us....

We already do this informally through things like the good old 'march and shoot' competitions which, I believe, were introduced into the training for the British Army following their problematic performance against the Boers. There are many other examples, of course, like fire fighting on a ship, or carrying stretchers for the medical corps. They just need to be thought out properly, and standards enforced rigidly. 

"Truly then, it is killing men with kindness not to insist upon physical standards ... which will give them maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war." S.L.A. Marshall


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2018)

To pile on Daft's last post, here is a long excerpt from pages 310-311 of Kenneth Radley's excellent We Lead, _Others Follow: First Canadian Division, 1914-1918_.



> One of the most valuable training vehicles was competitions, which received great emphasis.  Participants ranged in number from 6 or fewer men to whole sections, platoons and sometimes companies.  Arrangements for the competitions and their results were considered significant enough to be included routinely in unit and formation war diaries.  Competitions included officer revolver matches and sports (team and individual), bayonet fighting, bombing, scouting, sniping, marksmanship (rifle), forced marching, physical training, Lewis gunnery, wiring, patrolling, and even cooking; "Military Efficiency" competitions featured several events that in the aggregate tested sub-unit skills.  Senior officers often put up a trophy for award to the winner, as did Major Hugh Urquhart, BM of 1st Brigade, when he donated one in mid-1917 for marksmanship.  A platoon from 2nd Battalion took the honours.
> 
> A platoon competition that eventually became _the_ competition to win was based on _Army Rifle Association: Platoon Competition_, published in February 1917 just after _SS 135_ and _SS 143_.  It reinforced the importance of the platoon and the platoon commander.  During 1917, 10 such competitions took place.  GOC 29th (Imperial) Division (Major-General de Lisle) aply summed up their training value: "Target practise is for duffers and snipers.  Field firing competitions are the real battle practise."  1st Division saw their value as a demonstration of the power of surprise and of the great volume of fire under the control of the platoon commander.
> 
> ...



So, while this is more of a way of using competition as a training and testing tool, it shows that Daft's statement that, if thought out properly and with standards enforced rigidly, some form of collective ability can be tested.


----------



## cld617 (9 Sep 2018)

Ballz you can come to my unit and run PT any time. Throughout my years in the CF, I've met very few leaders who actually know how to increase the physical fitness of their people. Too many supervisors beasting their guys under the guise of training, and PSP leading groups through workouts which do nothing to address individual strengths and weaknesses. The only people who truly improve are the ones who take PT into their own hands, I've never seen someone who simply shows up to PSP led PT actually achieve any noticeable improvement. 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> In war, the enemy will test our units far harder than we can in peacetime. And no one fights alone, unless you're a pilot, or Rambo, of course
> 
> ...



Removing the requirement for individual testing is silly, group testing has some merit behind it. However there will always be the necessity to ensure all mbrs are doing their part.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To pile on Daft's last post, here is a long excerpt from pages 310-311 of Kenneth Radley's excellent We Lead, _Others Follow: First Canadian Division, 1914-1918_.
> 
> So, while this is more of a way of using competition as a training and testing tool, it shows that Daft's statement that, if thought out properly and with standards enforced rigidly, some form of collective ability can be tested.



For the win!  :nod:

"Target practise is for duffers and snipers.  Field firing competitions are the real battle practise."


----------



## ballz (10 Sep 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's silly.  In the units I was in, Friday was "long PT day," and leaders had between 0800-1200 to conduct PT.



I never posted it but I was going to reference "One Bullet Away" where every Friday it was a Unit tradition to do a run / swim / run event. Can't remember the distances though.

Some may disagree, but I don't think I ever voluntarily ran a rucksack march for PT because 60m is just not enough time. There were some occasions where I had the flexibility to run PT a little longer and I used those days for our slow, long runs (12/13km). Perhaps a dedicated "long" day could have featured some of that.

Someone above mentioned "combat PT." I assume they meant kitting up and doing aussie peelbacks, patrolling and responding to contact, etc... I regret not doing this. LCol (Ret'd) Quick had done it he was the OC prior to an 07 tour and it was brought up while I was a Pl Comd. In hindsight, not only could it have served as excellent PT, it could have served as excellent rehearsal time for SOPs / drills / etc, practicing how we communicate under stress, etc.... something I could have done on a consistent enough basis to actually get training value out of it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Removing the requirement for individual testing is silly, group testing has some merit behind it. However there will always be the necessity to ensure all mbrs are doing their part.



I don't advocate removing individual testing, just augment it with more reality based team level tests, which are currently totally absent from our battle fitness training inventory.

As a Royal Marine NCO once told me: "The graveyards are full of people who perfectly met the 'minimum standard'."


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Sep 2018)

Worked for a general once who insisted on weekly road marches for all units because he saw the value due to his wartime experience in Korea.He was almost fanatical about it.I saw him rip into a Captain who had fallen out. Later he was found to have MS.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Worked for a general once who insisted on weekly road marches for all units because he saw the value due to his wartime experience in Korea.He was almost fanatical about it.I saw him rip into a Captain who had fallen out. Later he was found to have MS.



I lashed into a Royal Marine 2Lt for similar reasons once. He had malaria. We carried on


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I lashed into a Royal Marine 2Lt for similar reasons once. He had malaria. We carried on



Probably didn't take his prophylaxis as directed . . .  self inflicted . . .  serves him right.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Probably didn't take his prophylaxis as directed . . .  self inflicted . . .  serves him right.



He was halfway there... just didn't like diluting his gin.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> He was halfway there... just didn't like diluting his gin.



Sadly, he was one of our only teetotalers. He'd grown up in Kenya on a gigantic farm. 

Old Macdonald had malaria... ee.. I... ee I.. oooooo


----------

