• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sergeant Major Marching Up & Down the Parade Square - Return to Spit & Polish

Spectrum said:
I think there might be some tactical reasons for the AF to fly in formation ;) ...not so much for a soldier to advance in review order. I know what you are saying though.

It's good to see that lots of Sgt/WO/Capts want to minimize the nonsense. I was starting to think it was only the junior ranks that felt that way.
Nonsense? I think many of you are forgetting our history and heritage. There was a tactical reason for the Advance in Review Order at one time. There was a tactical reason for forms on the march and at the halt. There is a reason why troops - especially recruits - should be marched from class to class instead of having them make their own way.

And its not nonsense.  The day we take drill out of the syllabus for recruit training or we say Trooping of the Colours are forbidden is the day I quit.

I'm not a proponent of unnecessary drill. Drill is required at some points in the CF.

Oh and if the officer or NCO makes a mistake in giving an order ie Shoulder Arms when you are standing at ease the correct drill movement is to not move.


 
Jim Seggie said:
I think many of you are forgetting our history and heritage.

Far from it.


There was a tactical reason for the Advance in Review Order at one time. There was a tactical reason for forms on the march and at the halt.

I know you still have vivid memories Jim, but the Earth has cooled since then.  ;D


There is a reason why troops - especially recruits - should be marched from class to class instead of having them make their own way.

I do not disagree. If you go back and re-read my posts in this thread, this is not what i was talking about.

The day we take drill out of the syllabus for recruit training

I dont think anyone has suggested that.

Drill is required at some points in the CF. 

Again, i don't think anyone has said it was not.

 
ERC:
You mean to say that they don't?

They used to, as late as circa 1980 - when I was last on regimental duty.

In the 1960s, '70s and into the '80s, regimental officers were drilled, separately, by the adjutant, assisted by the RSM or DSMI, in the relative privacy of the officers' mess parking lot, to ensure that they knew how to do their parts on parade without requiring too many rehearsals.

The last two units I was with always did this. The RSM (Go, See, Fix) and the CO ensured this was done.

On a change of command parade, all ranks, incl officers, carried a rifle with bayonet fixed for a change of pace. How do you think the officers came to be "capable" in arms drill?

The troops enjoyed it!
 
Rifleman62 said:
ERC:
The last two units I was with always did this. The RSM (Go, See, Fix) and the CO ensured this was done.

On a change of command parade, all ranks, incl officers, carried a rife with bayonet fixed for a change of pace.

And I'm flashing back to the words of WO Angus Muise RCR after I had marched my platoon all over the range trying to get them so that the "Front" rank faced "Front" (ie down range) : "Pay attention to detail, Sir, and the words of command for."

As to the role of "Ceremonial" drill, it had its origins in permitting a small, coordinated group of disciplined troops to defeat a mob by superior use of manoeuvre.  The need was for the troops to respond like marionets so that they all manoeuvred according to one of the many "plans" available - those plans being devised to ensure that weaknesses in the line were limited to the greatest extent possible.  When manoeuvring with sticks and shields in the face of a mob I don't believe there is a lot of time to discuss, debate and inform.

As you find yourselves fighting more "wars amongst the people" and thus conducting more ACP type operations, i would be willing to bet that some of the more complex drills from the 18th and 19th century could actually find application in the real world.  Operations that the Fort Henry Guard still conduct:  "Forming Twos, Forming Fours, Forming Square, Refusing a Flank, Reversing your Front, Advance and Retire by Platoons etc...."

I always find it useful to look to history to find solutions rather than trying to figure out how to build a wheel myself.

Having said that, in today's world there are many technical trades where time and distance are sufficient to permit collaborative decision making and where the collaborative process may be a more effective method of conducting operations.

Maybe it doesn't make sense for the technical trades to spend time learning anything more than coming to attention, saluting and managing a right turn - dismiss.  But for those troops that operate on the ground in close proximity to the "enemy" then I think Drill is not just a useful training tool and a historical reminder but could still find practical application on certain "urban battlefields".

 
Cdn Aviator,,,,,thanks......lol  ;)

I just watched the Ceremonial Guard on Parliament Hill. Damn fine parade, wasn't it? ;)

Oh and the Snowbirds were pretty damn good too.....as were the 18s!
 
Kirkhill said:
Maybe it doesn't make sense for the technical trades to spend time learning anything more than coming to attention, saluting and managing a right turn - dismiss.

Then who will bury their dead, when that task is required? What would you say to a member of such a technical trade when he or she asks why they aren't considered worthy to stand vigil at the National War Memorial, because there is no training requirement for them to learn the drill movements?

There are a few tasks which must be done when required, that no trade can clearly claim that they are part of the technical execution of their duties. But all the same, they must be done as needed, and done well. It's been stated above that a proper balance should be found, and that balance point doesn't have to be the same level of training/practice for Air Force technicians as it is for infantry soldiers. But the baseline should be at a level such that required tasks can be performed as needed with a minimum of preparatory practice and additional training.

The use of extreme examples to form a basis of argument against drill is setting aside the utility of drill when it has a purpose, such as moving a body of troops or marching a guilty bastard in.

 
Maybe it doesn't make sense for the technical trades to spend time learning anything more than coming to attention, saluting and managing a right turn - dismiss.  But for those troops that operate on the ground in close proximity to the "enemy" then I think Drill is not just a useful training tool and a historical reminder but could still find practical application on certain "urban battlefields".

U of S mandates that all trades be capable of defending their positions....drill is, as noted, important....it's not always going to be bombardment/banzai attacks from a uniformed opposition....

Likely to happen.....ehhhh.....not so much

Would you like to be in the position of deer in headlights as the mob bears down on you, and you hold up your hands and say nicely that you are a tech.....this war stuff has nothing to do with you........
 
I think we're all coming to some semblance of an agreement here. Drill is a necessary evil, that I think CDN_aviator and I agree with the dinosaurs on. Unneccessary drill is a PITA and should be avoied, but the ceremonial side is still something that must be done and therefore drill is the tool which you use to crack that particular nut, be it funerals, freedom of city parades etc.

HOWEVER, please believe me when I say that drill has absolutely no bearing on the training of soldiers for war. 20,30,40 years ago maybe, but the world has changed, how we fight has changed. My soldiers knew what they needed to do in contact not because I was shouting at them, but because they knew what needed to happen. I don't see how they got that fron rifle drill.
 
My soldiers knew what they needed to do in contact not because I was shouting at them, but because they knew what needed to happen.

Once you have taken the bright shiney guys off the streets, run them through processing hopefully crashing their civilian mores down to a point they start listening to you, teach them the military way...through example, repetition, repetition....repetition (with some shouting, etc.).....you then take them out and teach them step by step how to do military functions mostly related to the field......

is it any wonder that....they knew what needed to happen

They were trained. Nothing more. Drill is a portion of that training....that was my whole point.

ps: I agree with the guys saying needless drill is not needed.....then it comes down to who decides what is needless and what is not....
 
Towards_the_gap;

soldiers knew what they needed to do in contact not because I was shouting at them, but because they knew what needed to happen. I don't see how they got that fron rifle drill.

Because they were use to being shouted at on the parade square!



Joking.


 
GAP- I see your point, as part of the 'indoctrination' to military life. However trained soldiers do not need drill to keep their battle readiness up to par, no matter what trade they are.
 
Towards_the_gap said:
GAP- I see your point, as part of the 'indoctrination' to military life. However trained soldiers do not need drill to keep their battle readiness up to par, no matter what trade they are.

But they do need practice to be able to do the ceremonial thingys, and in today's forces that tends to be the everyday emphasis for drill....
 
Towards_the_gap said:
HOWEVER, please believe me when I say that drill has absolutely no bearing on the training of soldiers for war.

I could not disagree more.

Towards_the_gap said:
However trained soldiers do not need drill to keep their battle readiness up to par, no matter what trade they are.
Again, I disagree.


As I've already stated, we are soldiers.  Yes, soldiers are expected to march and look pretty when called for, but I'm not talking just the ceremonial side of things.  It's the intangibles in drill, kit and quarters, etc that have proven, since the time of the Romans (and before) to be war-winning (or at least battle-winning) requirements.

 
GAP said:
I agree with the guys saying needless drill is not needed.....

If something is needless, then, by definition, it's not needed.  (From the word "need" and the suffix "less", which means "without need" or "unnecessary")  8)

But I think I know what you mean, and yes, there can be too much of anything.  In the case of doing drill for drill's sake, then it's an unnecessary act.
 
Technoviking said:
As I've already stated, we are soldiers.  Yes, soldiers are expected to march and look pretty when called for, but I'm not talking just the ceremonial side of things.  It's the intangibles in drill, kit and quarters, etc that have proven, since the time of the Romans (and before) to be war-winning (or at least battle-winning) requirements.

You mean the Romans that were ultimately overrun by non-drilling Germans?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with any of the arguments, but someone has to provide some proof linking close-order drill with battlefield discipline instead of making these claims that professional armies cannot exist without it.
 
Infanteer said:
You mean the Romans that were ultimately overrun by non-drilling Germans?

They did seem to pick it up some time later though.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
They did seem to pick it up some time later though.

Well played, sir!  :nod:
 
Infanteer said:
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with any of the arguments, but someone has to provide some proof linking close-order drill with battlefield discipline instead of making these claims that professional armies cannot exist without it.
One article
Another

As armament and weaponry have improved, drill has had to adapt to new tactical concepts. Although the procedures taught in drill today are not normally employed on the battlefield, the objectives accomplished by drill are just as important to the modern Army as they were to the Continental Army.
Throughout history, armies have practiced drill.  In times of war, leaders used drill to move troops and equipment quickly from one location to another in an orderly manner.  Drills also show how troops can move as one in a flawlessly timed effort.  These unison movements are still important on the battlefield where mistakes can cost lives.  In peacetime, drill provides a means of enhancing morale, developing a spirit of cohesion, and presenting traditional and well-executed ceremonies.

These are just two parts, but to assert that the Romans lost the empire in spite of lack of drill on the part of the Germans is laughable.  The Western Empire fell for many reasons, but just as the German Soldier of 1939-1945 was arguably superior to his foes (on a one-to-one comparison), the German Empire fell nevertheless, no matter how well that Soldier marched.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
They did seem to pick it up some time later though.

;D


And some could argue that the Germans were decades ahead of their time in their drill:

Hammerzeit.jpg
 
Drill..........What is it good for....whoa... whoa... whoa... whoa....(to the tune of "War" by Edwin Starr 1969  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk&feature=related )

But seriously I think drill is actually an army thing.
Lets face it, the Navy and Airforce types never were,
nor ever will be any good, at pounding the pavement.
Sure, there is always a few you can compare to the best
but they were probably remusters. ;D

Military Drill: Its Theory and Purpose
http://www.vexen.co.uk/military/drill.html

1.The History of Drill
2.Drill and Politics
3.Drill and Physical Training
4.Drill and Discipline

1. The History of Drill

Drill is marching. In ancient history, the most powerful, efficient and developed empires developed ways of moving organized units of troops from one place to another on the battlefield, without individuals getting mixed up with other units. Otherwise, as masses of people manoeuvred amongst each other individuals would get lost and end up having to attach themselves to any old unit. A system of flags was developed so people could identify their own units (and side) on the field and make their way to their correct flag bearer if they got separated. But sticking to "formed up" squads was better, forming a box of men who moved as a single body. Overall it meant command systems were effective - men stayed together and could be commanded as units. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, testifies to the superiority of Roman discipline, and part of that discipline was an ordered method of moving formed up squads from one place to another. This discipline facilitates effective realisation of tactical man-management, and the result is a superior fighting army.1

During what historians have reluctantly come to call “The Military Revolution” European armies between 1550 and 1720 became generally state-controlled, financed and permanent. “There was a resultant loss of individuality, with the need for better organization, good training - especially in drill - and strict discipline”2. Training became an institution.

Since then, drill has become increasingly important as part of training, discipline and military parades. Goose Stepping was a form of extreme marching held by German, Prussian, and Russian heads of military to be an ultimate display of the unbreakable will and discipline of its soldiers. Most modern marching is not as extreme as the rigid goose step. Anything that resembles it is now unpopular because it has become associated with fascism. Nevertheless it is still used by some countries as a powerful display of military discipline.

Military Drill in the Army is formalized with utmost precision in the fearsomely bulky Drill Book. In the preamble to the Drill Book it is "confidently asserted that the foundation of discipline in battle is based on drill" and that this has been proven again and again. According to William Barlow, Robert Graves said there are "three types of troops: those with guts who could not drill; those good at drill but with no guts and those who had guts and could drill well. [...] These last fought best of all"3.

2. Drill and Politics

An army that regularly parades in public displays itself as a highly professional army. Even though the parade itself does not perform any useful function on a battlefield, it has an affect even in times of peace and in build-ups to wars. A rag-tag army is likely to be unable to put on parades, hence it holds that larger and better armies can display their discipline by means of public performances. It therefore acts as a psychological tool and a deterrent - it says that the army is ready, strong and trained.

For example North Korea was facing off against the USA in 2002/2003 and making politically aggressive claims that it was developing nuclear weaponry. It put on a large number of military parades, sometimes including squads of children playing instruments and performing rigid dances, and they received attention in the news, commenting on how "modern" their army and military was. They could clearly be seen to be skilled; and this would act as a deterrent against many lesser armies.

German Nazi parades in the 1930s were awesome, fast and hard. They clearly formed part of the psychological manipulation tools of the Nazis, making the people feel strong and proud, making them happier to put themselves behind such a dedicated and inspiring home force.

So merely as a deterrent and as home inspiration, drill and parades perform useful military and political functions. As we are concentrating, in this text, on the ontology of training procedures, I will now concentrate on the role of drill on the personal development of soldiers physically and mentally, and not look at the role of drill in formal military displays.

3. Drill and Physical Training

Not everyone has the control over their bodies that athletes have. Strain, stress, laziness, inability, mental weakness and disfamiliarity prevent most people from having maximum control of their own bodies. When situations become stressful, cold or uncomfortable then people who have been trained to rigidly form their bodies around their will will undoubtedly perform better than those people whose only mind-body training has been computer games and casual sport.

A recruit will spent an apparent eternity stood motionless at attention, sometimes in seemingly unbearable cold and warmth. But with each such session, the cold becomes a little more bearable, the motionlessness becomes more familiar and more elegant and the recruit's body learns a little better how to conform completely to the wishes of its operator.

With drill comes increased control over your own body.
•In a tactical situation, on sentry, you must remain completely quiet and motionless in order to minimize the chances of being seen or heard. A recruit who has mastered hundreds of hours of drill, in the cold and in uncomfortable positions, will also be a master of his own body in such tactical situations.

•When a recruit moves on to skill at arms training the casual motionless and calmness, despite discomfort, is an essential ability of a good shot. If a recruit is not used to ignoring the minor discomforts of a held position, their minds will be distracted and their firing will be less accurate.

Once drill is internalized and your body is accustomed to the discipline, it becomes more like a relaxing meditation than hard work, and your mind can wonder. Retrospectively, it feels to some like they no longer find it hard... it is hard, but, they have become accustomed to the hardness.

“Nearly everyone who came into the Depot from civilian life brought with him the tortuous notion that, to drill smartly, one had to restrict and frustrate the natural action of the body. [Through drill] men came to inhabit and use their bodies less self-consciously, with an economy of movement.”
William Barlow (2005)3

4. Drill and Discipline

Many civilians and military men would like to consider discipline the primary role of drill. Parades, it is frequently said, is a display of discipline and in training it forms a method of instilling discipline that can be visually and physically tested. Drill was "a considerable art and could be used to show off, to punish or to loosen up. In the early stages of training it was the recognised means of breaking a squad in"3. Yes, discipline is a major part of drill but I hope that by highlighting the other roles it plays before getting on to this subject, I also highlight the other functions that drill serves.

When training recruits in drill it tends to bring out peoples' attitudes. Employing typical low-level popular psychology, it is used to "drill" discipline into recruits by pummelling them harder the more they resist, until they "break". When they break, they accept that they're rubbish at drill, that they are making mistakes, and that they will have to keep doing it until they get as good as they are being trained to be. Until they reach that point of breaking, recruits will resist the training. They may think they're "good enough", they may reject the need to do drill or they may reject the commands or make fun of drill. Once broken, they will accept drill. Although previous "attitudes" will surface, they won't interfere anymore with the actual obedience to the commands given. In short, their attitude has been overridden by freshly instilled discipline. That's how drill is seen to instill discipline amongst the average person.

In addition, drill is used within the armed forces as a punishment. Drill can be made very physically demanding. On the coldest days, a squad commander can drill a group of men until they sweat, their legs and feet ache and hurt, and they can no longer perform the moves with full gusto. It is a form of exercise. Keeping those knees waist high when "marking time" (marching on the spot) can be a form of torture, a dynamic stress position. As such, many of the low-rankers in the armed faces pretty much hate drill for the memories of the angst, although some come to like it.

                                              Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
 
Back
Top