Which is more important in combat: Speed or strength?

2015-05-11T20:58:56-04:00

“But in a combat situation, a person’s deadlift is much more indicative of his value than his 5-mile time”–Mark Rippetoe

When in combat I no longer care how fast you run or if you earned your pt badge. I need to depend on you to carry me if needed!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 9:18 PM

2015-05-11T21:18:59-04:00

this

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 9:22 PM

2015-05-11T21:22:07-04:00

I voted Strength, but I'd like to add endurance to that.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made May 11 at 2015 9:26 PM

2015-05-11T21:26:58-04:00

I think a balance of both is crucial; speed without strength is useless, as is the opposite.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 11 at 2015 10:41 PM

2015-05-11T22:41:26-04:00

Endurance wins hands down.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 11:06 PM

2015-05-11T23:06:00-04:00

Neither. Agility of thinking is far and away the most important asset a leader can have.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 11:34 PM

2015-05-11T23:34:35-04:00

Endurance!

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 11 at 2015 11:45 PM

2015-05-11T23:45:45-04:00

Well in Bayonet Training I heard there are two types of fighters.... the quick and the dead.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 5:33 AM

2015-05-12T05:33:00-04:00

"Outwit your enemy with your mind."
Sun Tzu

It is good to have strength. But without intellect, it is difficult to outwit a smarter foe.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 12 at 2015 7:23 AM

2015-05-12T07:23:19-04:00

Subjective question.

Getting the hell out of the way is likely the more important aspect more often, however when that fails for you or others, strength becomes essential. But as others have said endurance is the real power.

In the recent article where they talk about "whats's wrong" and one of the comments is "we'll never run 2 miles in combat." The people making that comment don't understand that the 1.5/2/3 mile run is not about how far you will run in combat, or even how fast you are going to do it in. It's about building endurance for X time. Better endurance at long distances equates to better "sprints" or bursts or speed when needed, which IS strength.

Take a look at Usain Bolt. The guy is a fireplug. He is all muscle, and he runs 100/200/400 meters at a time.

Speed helps endurance, Endurance helps Strength, Strength helps speed. In an adrenaline situation you can sacrifice aspects of one for another because they are all muscle/mental disciplines.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 12 at 2015 7:24 AM

2015-05-12T07:24:30-04:00

I voted combination, however I'd have to say endurance, not so much the other two. You can be strong and fast but if you can't last long and tire out you're done.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 8:29 AM

2015-05-12T08:29:23-04:00

During our last rotation to Afghanistan you could see a measurable difference in the guys who lifted and those who didn't. On a daily basis we usually run during PT or ruck and these give us increased endurance. But having endurance without the load of is a completely different thing. When a Soldier who has excellent endurance for an APFT is loaded up with gear and forced to jump grape rows and crouch in pomegranate orchards they struggle, I have witnessed the lifters excel because their bodies are used to the resistance and the endurance runners who aren't lifters struggle. I believe you need a balance of both in order to be able to be effective.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 12 at 2015 8:49 AM

2015-05-12T08:49:15-04:00

Yes.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 9:10 AM

2015-05-12T09:10:18-04:00

I'll never be a fast runner but strength is my strongest point, as redundant as it sounds. SFC Stephen King Now, if you can carry me and run fast, then you are a beast!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 9:14 AM

2015-05-12T09:14:55-04:00

I voted balance, but I'd lean more towards speed. If you can move effectively, especially as a collective unit, and traverse obstacles that will be there on the battlefield. It allows you to set up a flank quicker, get on line quicker, and theoretically suppress the enemy quicker. You can compensate for strength with things like litters and Skeds, but you can't create speed on the battlefield.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made May 12 at 2015 9:33 AM

2015-05-12T09:33:49-04:00

It depends on the situation which is why we don't have one service branch or one weapons system. In some situations you want strength, in some speed and in others both in balance.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 12:34 PM

2015-05-12T12:34:02-04:00

I have never been in a combat situation but I believe that a balance of both would be needed. However, I also think that endurance plays a big role in the balance of both because regardless of your speed or strength (or combination of the two) if you cannot maintain it for the situation that presents itself then they are equally useless.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made May 12 at 2015 5:04 PM

2015-05-12T17:04:08-04:00

These attributes are NOT mutually exclusive. Like an alloy, the Soldier is better when both speed and strength are balanced.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 12 at 2015 6:15 PM

2015-05-12T18:15:50-04:00

My solution was to become a 19Q instead of 11B.

Response by CSM Michael Evans made May 12 at 2015 6:16 PM

2015-05-12T18:16:51-04:00

I prefer good aim! However, both are a major factor. Speed to deliver accurate fires and strength to maintain their composure during the toughest of times. So, my choice would then be the third.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made May 12 at 2015 10:23 PM

2015-05-12T22:23:45-04:00

Smarts work smarter not harder think about your move and what that could cause for you or aginst you and your brothers and sisters no one battle other then that of boxing are based on strength and speed alone

Response by CSM James Winslow made May 20 at 2015 1:16 PM

2015-05-20T13:16:45-04:00

While both are important, the ability to do routine tasks at 70-80% strength at 70-80% of speed for a 1-3 hour period is of more importance, so in my mind, aerobic conditioning is as important as speed/ strength. The majority of the tasks in the military are a series of repetitive actions requiring as much endurance as anything else. So, IMHO, cardio vascular resiliency and endurance are probably the most important physical attributes for the military.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 11:30 PM

2015-05-27T23:30:08-04:00

.3 both, to be well rounded is important. I believe a good soldier is well balanced.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 1:52 PM

2015-12-29T13:52:29-05:00

absolutely strength