Posted on 02/06/2019 6:36:57 PM PST by jazusamo
The U.S. Army is developing a more intensive fitness test tailored to combat situations following complaints from commanders of insufficient troop readiness.
Top members of Army brass told The Associated Press that the existing physical fitness tests employed by the Army during basic training do not adequately prepare soldiers for the physical challenges of the battlefield.
A new test that is described by the military as far more physically intensive “may be harder, but it is necessary,” Gen. Stephen Townsend, head of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, told the AP.
“We needed to change the culture of fitness in the United States Army," added Army Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost, commander of the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training. "We had a high number of nondeployable soldiers that had a lot of muscular/skeletal injuries and medical challenges because we hadn’t trained them from a fitness perspective in the right way."
The new test, developed by Maj. Gen. Frost, does not adjust scores for age or gender, unlike the current test. It also adds exercises including dead lifts, sprints with 40-pound weights, power throws, and a 2-mile run among other new tasks.
“Many folks find it easy to do the maximum standard for the current test,” Frost told the AP. “This new test is gender and age neutral. I cannot max this test.”
The AP reports that the new test will affect every soldier who attends basic training, including those not traditionally in combat roles.
“It breaks the mindset of ‘I am an intel soldier,‘” one military intelligence specialist told the news service. “It changes it to ‘I am a soldier,’ because bullets on the battlefield don’t discriminate.”
The test comes in response to concerns about readiness from top Army officials, who told the AP that as many as 12 percent of soldiers are undeployable due to injuries at any given time.
About one-third of soldiers who enter the service leave before their third year due to injuries, according to Frost, which the Army attributes to insufficient fitness training during boot camp.
“The goal is about a having a more combat-ready army," Frost told the AP.
Three Mile Run.
Every Marine is a Rifleman
Every Marine Officer is an Infantry Platoon (or higher command) commander.
Pilots, Tankers, Artillery, Lawyers, Supply, etc.
OMG!
They let women in and lowered their standards, which made it unfair to men so we lowered their standards. Then they acquiesced to overweight millennials and lowered standards some more. Now everyone is surprised of the unexpectedly unprepared military.
This, folks, is what leftists have wrought with our society. I am pushing back on them even to the point of ‘losing’ friends and family members who are steeped in leftist ideology. I recommend you do the same.
JoMa
I was under the impression the standards were lowered for men because they simply didn’t have enough people; I saw an interview with a drill instructor in which he admitted that. He was very clear that the military had changed, and rather than punishing the unfit they worked with them “because they wanted to help them”. This was around the same time (mid-2000s) when they were accused of ignoring some criminal histories to meet enlistment goals; I remember when they upped the age to enlist in the National Guard (when guard units were regularly being sent to Iraq) to 39. Imagine that - attending boot camp at 39. Fitness obviously wasn’t the primary focus.
In today’s asymmetric warfare , there are no non-combat units. An IT specialist may also need to drag a wounded buddy to safety.
In the mid 70’s I was in a second hitch with the 3/4 Cav, 25th ID in Hawaii. We’d run 5 miles a day, 5 days a week, of which half was generally up an incline. We wore standard issue combat boots. Roughly a hundred of us or so ran in formation. Out of that hundred, maybe 2 or 3 per year had knee or some other sort of joint issues.
So, they did not have enough people because 70% (or so) of millenials can not meet the ‘old, more stringent standard and thus, they lowered the standard.
This link is the just the first I found on the topic but it hits on the main point:
https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/70-young-americans-cant-meet-physical-requirements-military-service
JoMa
I applaud the change. But you know that as soon as a ‘disproportionate number’ of females start flunking the new standard (or going on extended sick call) with muscular/skeletal injuries there will be outrage from the usual suspects in Congress. We’ll see if MGen Frost changes his mind.
Yes, when they didn’t have enough people that could meet the standards, they simply lowered them so they weren’t washing out desperately needed personnel. This was happening at the same time as the “blue to green” program, where the military was coercing people in less-needed branches (Navy, Air Force) to re-up as Army & Marines - and as I understood it, people with nearly twenty years in had little choice.
When those two women were captured in Iraq (Lynch and Johnson), we were at a point where we were taking non-combat personnel and sending them into dangerous situations - even using unrelated branches to simply drive trucks.
U.S. standards were lax, compared to some other countries, as far back as the 1960s.
While in Korea I met and lived and worked with South Korean soldiers, in the Katusa program (Korean’s who, following basic training, serve as a Korean soldier assigned to an American military unit), as well as the ROK military.
If Korea was the size of the U.S. in people, capital and resources, and if the two nations were at war with each other, the U.S. would have to have the most superior technology, because soldier for soldier they’d be no match for the Koreans on a battlefield.
I met GIs who fought in Vietnam, and who met Koreans fighting their with them. They regarded the Koreans as the most fierce and able soldiers there.
That fittness did not begin with the Korean’s military training. It began in public schools before they ever got to the military. Why? The Koreans have an advantage. The population knows they could again be at war at any time. The general American public has not had that motivation.
I sure as hell hope them mean 20 minutes for TWO miles!
A good pair of shoes is good for about 400 miles, that’s the rule of thumb.
I like the idea of treating soldiers as athletes; if they follow through with actual coaching and training it could be good for everyone.
At 57 I’ve started doing the run/walk program. 30 seconds running (at a good clip) 30 seconds walking. It’s counter-intuitive but I actually go FASTER now, longer distances and with much much less pain; I was totally skeptical, too, but a good friend did his first half-marathon at 61, so explored and darned if it doesn’t work ‘Galloway’ running...
“f you haven’t the strength to drag a 200 pound wounded comrade, with pack, out of the burning vehicle, maybe you shouldn’t be with the combat units...”
I agree, however I suspect that the new standard will be “hard-ish, but easy enough so that the females can pass it”. which means that the men will breeze even when hungover. I believe the women need to be able to pull men out of danger, but I also believe that the men need to be pushed beyond their abilities. regularly. and yes, I understand that’s their (stated) goal. I’m just a big ‘ol sceptic.
How about pull ups? There was a chinup bar right in front of the Mess Hall and from my experience if you could not do 10 you would not be eating a meal in the mess hall that day.
“They let women in and lowered their standards, which made it unfair to men so we lowered their standards. Then they acquiesced to overweight millennials and lowered standards some more. Now everyone is surprised of the unexpectedly unprepared military.
This, folks, is what leftists have wrought with our society. I am pushing back on them even to the point of ‘losing’ friends and family members who are steeped in leftist ideology. I recommend you do the same.
JoMa
“
I’ve been waiting more than 10 years for this site to get an upvote button. it still hasn’t, so here’s your upvote from me.
Don’t know.
Having had my ass thrown down in judo by several different females, and having taught a few to shoot, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Disclaimer- tried to enlist several times but rejected for hearing, so never served (despite best efforts), so am only commenting about the fitness aspect ;-)
I’d serve in a unit with this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZFuw7a13E
First of all, such camps are a one-shot for those who have enlisted in the military, but are off standards too much. So there is potential there.
Second, if they go to a camp in bad faith, they can be dismissed at any time. Same with breaking rules, insubordination, etc.
Hopeless cases would be ineligible, unless they were of a critical need specialty, which do exist.
And the price is peanuts, for what the military would get, including increasing their own training standards with better recruits. So costs in the few millions, and the results worth billions.
You are right about her superior physicality but she is an exception to the rule. We can’t pretend that men and women are equal in strength and endurance and it is a fact that standards in the military have been watered down to accommodate females weakness, this is not giving the males the truly rugged training they need in order to bond and become a cohesive unit. One weak link can break the the strongest chain and I say that as a 11B1P [Paratroop Infantry] and as a long time employee of Tsubuki Mfg. [ a Maker of Chains in Holyoke Mass.]Our military should not be used as the place to experiment with petty social grievances .
Never said they are equal.
There are two bell curves. There is some overlap. That is all. As with any other set of qualifications for any other action- I don’t care about race, gender, religion, or anything else; it’s ‘can you do the job, period.
About 3 out of 10 men are in the physical shape needed to do some of those jobs; maybe 1 out of 15 women. I really don’t care. Just like if I hire or work with someone in a band- I don’t care if they are Muslim, gay, black, the son of a billionaire, the ONLY criteria is ‘what can they do when it’s time to do the job’. Any other consideration is racist/sexist/moronic gullcrap.
Anyone who has an issue with that, either from the right because I don’t care if my drummer or singer is gay or the left because I’m guilty of ‘colorblind racism’ can go pound sand.
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.