CREDIT: Public Domain Image by Spec. Zachary Stahlberg, 7th Army Training Command
Posted on 12/19/2023 9:35:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
CREDIT: Public Domain Image by Spec. Zachary Stahlberg, 7th Army Training Command
The National Defense Authorization Act has ordered the Army to up its game on fitness standards, specifically for soldiers in some combat specialties. This comes after the inability of the Army to come up with a physical fitness test that will measure physical fitness and treat men and women equally. This text is from page 382 of the NDAA conference report.
SEC. 577. INCREASED FITNESS STANDARDS FOR ARMY 19 CLOSE COMBAT FORCE MILITARY OCCUPA20 TIONAL SPECIALTIES.
(a) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall implement increased minimum fitness
standards as part of the Army Combat Fitness Test for all soldiers of the following military occupational special2 ties or areas of concentration:
(1) 11A. [Author's note, the bracketed information is my addition. Infantryman]
(2) 11B. [Infantryman]
(3) 11C. [Infantryman]
(4) 11Z. [Infantryman]
(5) 12A. [Engineer]
(6) 12B. [Engineer]
(7) 13A. [Field Artillery]
(8) 13F. [Field Artillery]
(9) 18A. [Special Forces]
(10) 18B. [Special Forces]
(11) 18C. [Special Forces]
(12) 18D. [Special Forces]
(13) 18E. [Special Forces]
(14) 18F. [Special Forces]
(15) 18Z. [Special Forces]
(16) 19A. [Armor]
(17) 19C. [Armor]
(18) 19D. [Armor]
(19) 19K. [Armor]
(20) 19Z. [Armor]
(b) BRIEFING.—Not later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives describing the methodology used to establish standards under subsection (a).
The extraordinary use of the NDAA by both parties in Congress to tell the Army to get its s**t together was driven by the Army's inability to come up with a test that had some relationship to combat duty but that women could pass.
Prior to and during World War II, the physical fitness test consisted of five events: squat jumps, sit-ups, pull-ups, push-ups, and a 300-yard run: this tested strength and short-burst speed. In 1959, the test was changed to add some skills as well as physical fitness testing and rebranded as the Physical Combat Proficiency Test. It retained the five-event structure, but the events were: 40-yard low crawl, 20-foot horizontal ladder/monkey bars, grenade throw (in basic training and for combat support troops, the 105-yard man-carry was used), and a 1-mile run in boots. In its first nod to women in the Army, the Women's Army Corps (WACs) had their own test consisting of arm circles, body twists, a bent-over “airplane” exercise, sit-ups, and jumping jacks.
Around 1969, the tests were changed again to consist of sit-ups, inverted crawl (aka perverted crawl), run-dodge-and-jump (aka trip-stumble-and-fall), horizontal ladder, and one-mile run in boots. This video is of Filipino Scout Rangers carrying on a tradition they received from the US Army, the inverted crawl.
In 1980, it became minimalist: push-ups, sit-ups, and two-mile run at first in boots but eventually in running shoes. (I usually scored 297-plus on this three-event, maximum of 300 points test — it ain't bragging if you can do it.)
For most of its modern history, the Army used a fixed set of events in which the grades were scaled based on age and gender. The purpose was to require a certain level of general physical fitness, to provide a personnel management tool, and to give military school cadre a legitimate way to refuse admittance to anyone who rubbed them the wrong way. I'm only half joking about the latter.
Once Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton Carter opened all military jobs to women, the Army Physical Fitness Test became a sore point. Why would a male tanker or infantryman have to meet one standard while the woman allegedly doing the same job was allowed to meet a significantly lower standard? Also, the reality of Afghanistan and Iraq had shown how divorced the APFT was from combat requirements. How many times were soldiers required to run two miles in sneakers?
This reality, plus the cross-fit craze, led to the development of the Army Combat Fitness Test.
Army Combat Fitness Test by streiff at redstate on Scribd
The problems with the ACFT were two-fold. It required specialized equipment to practice and administer the test. As a company commander — I couldn't imagine trying to put my company through this administrative monstrosity twice a year — and it had once standard for all ages and both sexes. The result was that 70% of men passed, and 84% of women failed.
An active-duty major who has over 20 years of Army service under her belt, however, told Task & Purpose that the ACFT “is discriminatory, hurts readiness, and reduces combat effectiveness by reducing our ability to gain expertise related to nonphysical tasks … It is a massive institutional mistake and should not be implemented above the battalion level.”
The major, who requested anonymity to avoid potential backlash, added that she doesn’t believe the test is gender neutral because by focusing on strength, “It will disproportionately negatively impact women due to sheer size differences, muscle strength baselines, and require extensive training for women to be able to compete ‘equally’ with men for output results vs measuring fitness.”
Here, I'm firmly with Clint Eastwood.
This resulted in the "leg tuck," where you hold onto a pull-up bar and tuck your knees up above your waist, which had a 72% failure rate for women being dropped from the test as it was not a good test of core strength. I've tried it. I beg to differ. The forces of equity seemed to be winning out.
At a Congressional hearing in May 2022, Secretary of Army Christine Wormuth said the goal of the ACFT was to raise the overall fitness levels of soldiers and that the Army didn’t want to “disadvantage any sub-groups,” based on evidence collected in multiple studies.
The fact is that a 98-pound 155mm projo doesn't care about your age or gender. It has to be loaded into the tube. A light infantry solder is going to carry over 70 pounds of equipment in ideal circumstances where the weather isn't trying to kill him...if you are a machine gunner or a Javelin gunner, add another 30-40 pounds. Add another 60 pounds of parachute and ancillary gear if you are a paratrooper. I posted on this subject a few years ago: Women In Combat: Making A Virtue Of Weakness Gets People Killed. It is as true today as it was then.
Florida Representative Mike Waltz and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton have called for gender-neutral standards. Still, I seriously doubt they will prevail because the DIE/CRT imperative of "equity," or the equality of outcomes, is more important than the lives of soldiers.
I suspect “Equally” does not mean what one thinks it does. The male standard will be a level that fails 35% of the men with the woman standard will be a level that fails 35% of the women.
But trannies will out compete women, same as they do in sports. So our army will consist solely of men and trannies.
So somebody else doesn’t think 105 lb female loaders on an M1 tank are a good idea?
The authorized crew for a Chaparral crew was 5 soldiers. Rarely did we have 5 man squads, usually it was 4, and sometimes 3. Fortunately, women were barred from short range air defense units, as the primary mission was with infantry and armor divisions.
Yeah, the average Abrams tank round weighs a little over 40 lbs and has to be handled at arms length in confined quarters dynamically, moving at high speed on rough terrain. Most people could not do that without great upper body strength.
I'm so effing sick of this crap. People don't usually make the mistake of asking me more than once why I stay out on the farm and seldom go to town. Even my wife has caught on that it makes me dangerous, mostly to myself.
😏😏🙄🙄😀😀😁😁😂😂🤣🤣☹☹
Are we adapting the physical fitness test to our social theories of equality, or basing the test around the job/duty requirements? That simple.
Every test is going to favor certain groups to some degree. Get over it. The old test with pushups, sit-ups and a 2 mile run favored small and light people. A really small and light dude can run like the wind, bounce up and down on the push ups and sit ups, but is he really able to carry a 45 pound ruck and body armor, 210 rounds, his weapon, etc. all that well? No test will be perfect and 100% fair for all because other constraints like not needing special equipment, making the test easy and clear to understand and administer, train for, avoiding injuries, etc. must also be considered.
Of course today, in the age of special considerations for extra special people, what is true even between men is unacceptable if it’s a female that feels disadvantaged by some test.
Also, all this dividing things up into 3 groups... more convoluted nonsense. Every soldier, even a cook, electrician or truck driver is a rifleman or may find themselves behind enemy lines etc. All soldiers should perform to the general physical standards which indicate combat fitness.
All you do for the combat arms or physically demanding jobs and folks that are specifically in them is add events that pertain to the specific requirement that likely are indicative of being able to perform the combat task well. Those will vary since a fireman should be able to pull someone to safety, an artilleryman should be able to lift shells quickly and repeatedly, and an infantryman needs to be able to walk 12 miles with full combat gear and still function. There should be a simple baseline test and then 1 - 3 MOS specific additions.
You might be shocked and realize that what you end up with something like the old APFT test but simply adding the MOS specific requirements on top of that.
But, but, but aren’t we told that men do not have an advantage in strength? Isn’t that why it is not unfair for “trans women” (i.e. transvestite men) to compete in women’s sports?
“It will disproportionately negatively impact women due to sheer size differences, muscle strength baselines, and require extensive training for women to be able to compete ‘equally’ with men for output results vs measuring fitness.” Never fear the new military will just make men women and problem solved. /s
Several years ago I worked at a nearby air base. The airmen’s appearance was quite good in the physical fitness department. Those a little overweight were put on the “fat boy” program, and if I’m not mistaken were run out the door if they did not get within weight standards in a given time.
We recently went to the base BX and commissary. I could not believe the fat slobs in uniform. Totally disgusting.
I also recall back in the day when an officer looked like an officer. The officers at the recent base visit had the overall physical appearance of a stressed out private E1 that forgot to press his uniform or shine his shoes. Same with NCO’s, they used to all have that strac look about them, today not so much.
We went to what’s called the DEERS office to get ID cards. The wife and I both noticed how absolutely filthy the office was. And the physical condition of that office was in dire need of repairs to the walls and carpet.
Apparently to create equity everything must be brought down to the lowest possible standard.
I’m hoping what we saw was not representative of the aircraft on base.
What sounds like a plan...I fear will turn into a mess as seems to be usual. There is a simple way to recruit the people the Armed forces need, but they won’t do that. There always has to be some complicated “plan”. They could learn from past victories & defeats...if they would.
What sounds like a plan...I fear will turn into a mess as seems to be usual. There is a simple way to recruit the people the Armed forces need, but they won’t do that. There always has to be some complicated “plan”. They could learn from past victories & defeats...if they would.
what a concept...
That’s why they have dishonorable discharges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.