Posted on Jan 8, 2015
Does every MOS/Rate need the same level of fitness? What about an MOS/Rate specific PT test or events?
83.5K
659
567
23
20
3
I really hope this happens. Not all MOS require the same level of Fitness. I wouldn't use it for an promotion packet against all MOSs as it wouldn't be the same for everyone but I would like to see additional events that address some of the specific tasks that are measures of fitness for some MOSs. For infantry I would add pull ups or even a ruck. If you were a mechanics you might have to be able to hand carry a certain weight over a short distance. I would let senior NCOs in that MOS decide what they would require. The Army should not make every MOS have a different tst. This would impossible. But an example of how this would look is that any one in combat arms or in a combat arms unit would be required to perform pulls and a ruck. If you were in a field medical or medical support unit you may have to do a body drag.
*****************************EDITED*************************************
Be advised. The standard should not be LOWERED. The base APFT with 180 should not be lowered. I think it should be higher. I think it should be especially higher for some areas, such as the combat arms. What this would look like is using the standard test for everyone but adding an additional event. So if you are a soldier that doesn't much physical labor you wouldn't be effected by this. If you were a combat engineer in the 82ND you would be required to a bit more.
*****************************EDITED*************************************
Be advised. The standard should not be LOWERED. The base APFT with 180 should not be lowered. I think it should be higher. I think it should be especially higher for some areas, such as the combat arms. What this would look like is using the standard test for everyone but adding an additional event. So if you are a soldier that doesn't much physical labor you wouldn't be effected by this. If you were a combat engineer in the 82ND you would be required to a bit more.
MOS
APFT
Fitness
Edited 9 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 198
1
1
0
On a serious note, all soldiers should be able to do 8 pull ups and ruck 12 miles under
4 hours.
4 hours.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SSG Zachary Vrba
I do agree that some people do sloppy pull-ups, but if the person trains that muscle group they will be able to perform them correctly. Basically, it all comes down how Physical Training is implemented. Just like push-ups and sit ups not everybody will be able to perform 80 reps on each event without training.
I do agree that some people do sloppy pull-ups, but if the person trains that muscle group they will be able to perform them correctly. Basically, it all comes down how Physical Training is implemented. Just like push-ups and sit ups not everybody will be able to perform 80 reps on each event without training.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) I think 8 is a little high. The Marines tried to do 3 but it failed. Many of the Marines in, even males, could not perform this task. I would say 3 is a fair number. But I also like to add 6 was all that was required for Ranger.
Corps Delays Pull-Up Requirements for Female Marines | TIME.com
Jan. 1 deadline for key part of combat readiness put on hold indefinitely
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
What drives that requirement, I mean sure... it would be nice. It would be nice if all soldiers could run 4 miles in 30 minutes. The question is what standard gives us the most bang for our buck. If soldiers are unable to perform in combat then there is definitely a need to raise the standard... at the same time, whenever we raise standards, we are also going to lose people (many of them highly skilled who have received a lot of expensive training) and that adversely impacts mission readiness.
Is it possible that the current standards are fairly well balanced between the requirement to maintain a physically fit force and still retain soldiers who spend long hours performing sedentary work and struggle to stay fit?
Is it possible that the current standards are fairly well balanced between the requirement to maintain a physically fit force and still retain soldiers who spend long hours performing sedentary work and struggle to stay fit?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't fully agree with that notion. Some MOSs have low lifting demands while other MOSs have higher lifting demands and strenuous activities, leaving the door open for argument if one MOS would have to support another in a garrison, field, and/or deployment environment. They may run into a mantra of "I don't have to do that, that's not covered in my MOS." I think a set standard should be enforced, then the "PT studs" are pushed harder, and those not as physically fit are pushed a little harder to excel. I'm not saying everyone push themselves to Ranger or Green Beret, you know "break yourself off" type standards, simply push to excel in any exercise regimen put forward.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am a bit lost. We already have different expectations for soldiers. If you are in FA you have to lift more than a 42A. We all have the same base already. It is like saying that I don't have to shoot because infantry shoot better. If you all have to meet a base line then they can't argue that.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Nice idea Sir, but since there appears to be no safe areas in the current battlefield, what happens if your FOB gets overrun? The grunts pack up and haul ass and the specialist die in place??
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am just lost as to what you mean. Every soldier should have a baseline but what about adding events for those that have unique responsibilities.
(0)
(0)
SGM Bill Frazer
My point- Nothing is locked into concrete anymore. There may be a time where everyone may have to act as a Grunt, instead of an intel spec, or truck driver, or mechanic. How do you decide you will train to what standard- it's too late if an FOB/OP gets overrun- and everyone had to carry their own equipment and fight their way out. In MFO, our orders were if Israel and Egypt started shooting again we were to E& E cross country to Saudi Arabia- a damn long haul for someone who is peaked up.
(0)
(0)
This is exactly right. Also, we need to eliminate age and gender differences on the PT tests. Rank and MOS differences make sense, age and gender differences don't. An E9 11B probably doesn't have the same physical demands as an E4 11B, but that E4 11B has the same physical requirements whether they're 18 and male or 35 and female.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am tired of hearing this tired argument about a PT Test. The PT Test is merely a way to measure physical fitness. Not a way to measure how capable someone can do his or her job. I have yet to meet a person who scores a 300 on their PT Test who physically can't hack it on a patrol. Having said that, I haven't met a soldier who can't pass the PT test, but is able to do their job with a high level of proficiency. Reason being is physical fitness is often a solid gauge for how seriously one takes his or her job. In most cases it shows a high level of discipline. I understand there are exceptions. As an organization we don't deal in exceptions. We deal with standards.
Long story short if a unit feels it best to add standards like 4 mile runs in 32 minutes, or 12 mile rucks in 3 hours to better understand their soldiers physical capabilities so be it. The Army doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Weak people need to be better at PT.
Long story short if a unit feels it best to add standards like 4 mile runs in 32 minutes, or 12 mile rucks in 3 hours to better understand their soldiers physical capabilities so be it. The Army doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Weak people need to be better at PT.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In my day physical fitness was an individual soldier's responsibility. Some soldiers sat at desks all day, and others trained in the field all day, so a good many failed to get all the proper exercise needed, but the Army did not care, since it was the soldier's responsibility to keep in shape. Sure commanders were concerned, and often scheduled remedial pt to help, and that extra training was appreciated, but it never seemed to work if the soldier failed to put in the required individual effort. I always felt that r.e.m.f.s. were lesser soldiers, but if the army goes to M.O.S. specific pt tests, with that finally confirm my suspicions?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
no. the point for everybody having the same standard for pt is that while unlikely a mechanic or a desk jockey may have to do the exact same kind of thing as a combat mos soldier such as carrying a wounded comrade or fight. it really comes down to this. if you are on a convoy and get ambushed or you are on a Blackhawk and it goes down do you really want to drag around soldiers that are struggling because they aren't up to the same physical standard for the reason that they are not likely to ever see combat?
I do find it interesting the number of people here that think there should be a different standard because somebody will "never deploy or see combat" ok I understand but here's the counter point. what if they do?
I do find it interesting the number of people here that think there should be a different standard because somebody will "never deploy or see combat" ok I understand but here's the counter point. what if they do?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Here's the problem I see with this idea; What about units that have low-density MOS's? I'm one of four Air Defenders at an Army Headquarters. The command isn't going to have time to organize an MOS Specific test for me and my guys. Sure I could take the initiative and do it, but the command would have to validate it. They have a hard enough time getting everyone to take an APFT. In my mind, it isn't feasible from an organizational perspective. Too many mixed units for a commander to effectively organize everything.
If this concept is something Big Army wants to pursue, I'd throw out bringing back the MOSQ program. Everyone, everywhere would have to qualify within their MOS annually or get flagged. You could add specific physical fitness requirements into this, like a ruck march, individual and teams lifts, obstacle course completion, etc. You keep your standard, semi-annual APFT for everyone, and then require more specifics as part of their MOSQ, conducted annually.
If this concept is something Big Army wants to pursue, I'd throw out bringing back the MOSQ program. Everyone, everywhere would have to qualify within their MOS annually or get flagged. You could add specific physical fitness requirements into this, like a ruck march, individual and teams lifts, obstacle course completion, etc. You keep your standard, semi-annual APFT for everyone, and then require more specifics as part of their MOSQ, conducted annually.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google