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
6
6
0
i think not. look, in battle, you are all green. between the years 2002 and 2008, parachute rigger companies were used as CLP escorts all over Iraq. during 2008, an NBC platoon was depoyed for that same mission. they had a few admin and mechanics in their trucks. physical standards need to be met. it is hard hearing myself say that, since these days, im not as good as i once was. but as a Soldier, i must be willing to get in that truck and fight. and if the truck goes down, move out on foot. i dont ever see myself kicking in doors and rucking 20KM to get to an enemy location with 50 lbs of crap in my backpack. but since one day i may need to move out just a little, why not do this annual requirement. i dont think you should be able to do less and get the same pay, because you push paper for a living, or pack parachutes, or fix trucks, or shoot people.
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am aware of that. A good buddy of mine was a Rigger at bragg when he got deployed for CLP escorts in Baghdad. I would ask if sending infantry to Afghan are expected to do more? They are going up and down mountains. Not all soldiers do the same. Mech infantry do a whole lot more than regular infantry. If you were to see the PMCS of a Bradley you would flip. There is one just for the turret and one just for a hull.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The answer should be obvious. Some jobs are harder. Rifleman or mortar man? The job specific physical requirements differ based on how heavy are the weapons and equipment you must manipulate and how far and how fast do you have to carry this armament and equipment. Those of you saying "everyone is rifleman" are kidding yourselves. The Army has MOS's for a reason. It is a way to specialize and capitalize on a population with a wide variety of physical and mental capacities. Every soldier "might" be in a position that they need to call for and adjust indirect or aerial delivered fires. Should we change the GT score requirements for everybody to the same as 13F? 75% of you would be out of a job because you can't do the math consistently under stress. Our current physical fitness standards are baseline, lowest common denominator. They are woefully inadequate for sustained infantry ground combat or special operations forces, which is why certain units have higher physical performance standards.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am glad I am not the only one here that agrees. I am seeing a trend that either they say that everyone is a riflemen, or worse when they say they are all infantry, and the other argument is that we would be reducing the standard. Either one don't made sense to me. If soldiers think that you should strive for 180 I am sure they will have a dismal career. If the think they should lower it I would tell them that they should consider a career change. But everyone wants to feel like they are crucial and are the tip of the spear. No one wants to be the shaft. They all want to be grunts until there is grunt shit to do.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
The Army as an organization accepts risk in having minimum performance standards. In exchange they get access to the human resources they need to accomplish the big mission at reasonable cost (though, you can see the DoD has serious concerns about how "reasonable" this costs are). You the individual bear the highest risk of the Army's compromise to meet manpower requirements. You are not "forced" by a high standard to be as physically fit as you may need to be in a long firefight or worse a hand to hand combat engagement. Or survive and evade an escape scenario. The Army has a replacement for you...because they have a standard that enough people can pass. Your move.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
agreed.. so now what happens to battle proved broken troops who know their business better than those who have not been in a fight and undamaged when it comes to promotions which in part are dependent on the PT results ?
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SFC Kirchberg, the Army should rebuild them. Also, consider that retention and promotion boards consider military schooling, civilian education, and performance evaluation and awards in addition to physical fitness. FM 7-22 has a chapter on rehabilitating injured soldiers. Though I would argue it is not as good as it could be. The priority for recovering and rebuilding your physical fitness after acute or chronic injuries is joint health and restored mobility to stabilize joints that should be stable (elbows, scaps, lower back, knees) and mobilize joints that should be mobile (wrists, shoulders, neck, mid back, hips, ankles), progressive resistance and motor complexity on exercises specific to occupational movement patterns to develop strength and endurance, and finally a progressive movement sequence in opposite directions of the exercises to balance out the tension in the tissues (some might call this progressive yoga). This sequence of exercising, that the Army does not articulate very well, activates the nervous system, releases the "brakes" that are preventing full range of movement, and then turns off or deactivates the tension from the exercise. I have seen guys come back to full strength in six months after fractured neck vertebrae with this formula.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
We kind of already do (or did) have MOS specific "PT tests", but not quite in the way mentioned. Typically in an Infantry Bn, while there is no real official recourse for not doing so, the 'minimum' passing score for the APRT (APFT in my day) is higher than the 180 required by the big Army...I've seen as much as 270 be the expected minimum. You won't get chaptered if you aren't there, but you'll definitely find yourself working harder.
Also, there are MOS specific tasks...road marching, for example. Most (if not every) Infantry unit I was in did 12 road marches at least a couple times a month, sometimes even weekly. Obstacle courses. Most posts have them, not many units use them. I've been in units that did, regularly, and your time mattered. Good stuff for an Infantry guy, but maybe not so important for a pay clerk. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of right now.
Just my opinion, but I do kind of agree about the "MOS specific PT test" but maybe not so much in the way mentioned here, which I think would turn into a DA designed farce. Doing it at unit level, and based on mission specific needs works well, and seems more appropriate.
Also, there are MOS specific tasks...road marching, for example. Most (if not every) Infantry unit I was in did 12 road marches at least a couple times a month, sometimes even weekly. Obstacle courses. Most posts have them, not many units use them. I've been in units that did, regularly, and your time mattered. Good stuff for an Infantry guy, but maybe not so important for a pay clerk. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of right now.
Just my opinion, but I do kind of agree about the "MOS specific PT test" but maybe not so much in the way mentioned here, which I think would turn into a DA designed farce. Doing it at unit level, and based on mission specific needs works well, and seems more appropriate.
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree that the MOS specific PT test should be at the unit level and it should be an assessment - not a test. When I was in Iraq as an 88M truck driver we did line haul convoy. Not once did I have to sprint or run in the course of my duties. What I did have to do is climb all over my tractor trailer; strap down loads; carry heavy loads; and do a lot of lifting. ..
(3)
(0)
SP5 Tom Carlson
could you imagine the expense of hiringggggg phd's that never ever do your job. all civilians sitting in an aircondioned office with better facilities than an Airforce officers club in Arlington Virginia deciding what your specific MOS fitness level should be,,???
(0)
(0)
Id love to see it happen, I doubt it will.
It makes too much sense. And would add some additional issues .. If a SM is MOS A, but working in MOS B, which PT test do they take?
If a unit has several MOS in it, say a CAV HHC, you would have to be able to track, organize, staff and execute dozens of different PT tests standards.
And you would need new equipment which costs money service do not have.. TAS-C has lots of "rubber Duck" rifles for the 11 series MOS PT test... but they would have to buy "Rubber laptops" for the Admin MOS, "Rubber O2 Tanks" for the Med folks and "Rubber food" for the food service MOS PT test.. though, well never mind, units could just send those PT testers to the DFAC and get like items from the dinner menu (I kid, I kid....lol)
It makes too much sense. And would add some additional issues .. If a SM is MOS A, but working in MOS B, which PT test do they take?
If a unit has several MOS in it, say a CAV HHC, you would have to be able to track, organize, staff and execute dozens of different PT tests standards.
And you would need new equipment which costs money service do not have.. TAS-C has lots of "rubber Duck" rifles for the 11 series MOS PT test... but they would have to buy "Rubber laptops" for the Admin MOS, "Rubber O2 Tanks" for the Med folks and "Rubber food" for the food service MOS PT test.. though, well never mind, units could just send those PT testers to the DFAC and get like items from the dinner menu (I kid, I kid....lol)
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would say that you wouldn't need all those training aids. Most DFACs already make rubber food. But on a serious note I am along the lines of understanding that everyone would take a standard test but those in certain professions would take additional events. There is no way to make a test for every MOS.
(2)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
CPT (Join to see) I agree, thats the approach that makes most sense.. a base line standard APFT, with MOS specific additional tasks.
But going down that rabbit hole....we are back to MOS qualification tests.. something I had the please(dis) in doing when I was a young soldier. It was a good idea wrapped in a failure of execution and nothing more then cram session in a few manuals prior to the test. assuming you did not get an advanced boot leg test questions from a unit (SM) that took the test last week, month.
Id love to see annual MOS PHYSICAL qualifications instituted. But I don't see it happening, that ability, standard and authority to reward/ administratively separate already exists, its just that few command teams take the time or are supported to use the procedures in place effectively.
But going down that rabbit hole....we are back to MOS qualification tests.. something I had the please(dis) in doing when I was a young soldier. It was a good idea wrapped in a failure of execution and nothing more then cram session in a few manuals prior to the test. assuming you did not get an advanced boot leg test questions from a unit (SM) that took the test last week, month.
Id love to see annual MOS PHYSICAL qualifications instituted. But I don't see it happening, that ability, standard and authority to reward/ administratively separate already exists, its just that few command teams take the time or are supported to use the procedures in place effectively.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think the people who fire at American troops give a rats' ass what that person's MOS is.
In addition, it seems like the people with more physically demanding jobs already do more physically demanding training--even if there isn't a test proving that.
In addition, it seems like the people with more physically demanding jobs already do more physically demanding training--even if there isn't a test proving that.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You are true. Everyone should really work on their fitness levels. Especially if you knew that you could find yourself on the business end of a boom stick.
(1)
(0)
SPC Daniel Bowen
Should be, but do not. That is where the standards of minimum 180 for the PT test should not be acceptable for even grunt units. Its a unit standard to have higher PT scores and more physically fit soldiers, but that is only an opinion, not a fixed standard.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
I think this goes with what I was saying about enhanced training standards for soldiers assigned to BCT's. Those soldiers are the ones most likely to be forward and engaged by the enemy therefore higher fitness and combat standards could be useful.
(0)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
As the LT stated the enemy KNOWS they don't want to tangle with the infantry so what is the question again???
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think we should stop focusing on the number of pushups one can do, how fast they can run and try to focus on individual job competence. When was the last time the Army tested individuals on their levels of job or basic soldier competence. Is the Army afraid of the results? I recall taking and passing a couple of Skill Qualification Tests (SQT) in the late 1980’s. I think after that in the mid 1990’s the Army created a test called the SDT, and after a short time of dismal results, threw that test out too. I feel people focus too much on a numerical quantifiable APFT score and not enough on competence.
The Army NCO creed does not mention running 2 miles really fast of doing a hundred pushups, but it does take the time to mention competence. Stop the excuses of "some people just don't test well" or words to that effect. Smart people who do happen to test well are tired of hearing that lame old excuse.
The Army NCO creed does not mention running 2 miles really fast of doing a hundred pushups, but it does take the time to mention competence. Stop the excuses of "some people just don't test well" or words to that effect. Smart people who do happen to test well are tired of hearing that lame old excuse.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Very well put 1SG. I would also agree that we need MOS based testing. The other services do it so I'm not sure why we don't. I feel like the PT test/Height and weight are important albeit it needs to be revamped but, also important.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I was a battalion S-1 which pretty much would mean I wouldn't have to pass a heck of a lot of fitness standards. But, what would have happened if I had been assigned to a leg unit? I would have a lot of catching up to do. Plus maintain my jump status! Probably best to keep everybody at least marginally fit.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You can agree at least not all units in the Army and duties require the same amount of fitness. Some units just have to perform a bit higher. My father in law was personnel in the Marines. He went from a training unit to a Ground Combat unit. He had to ruck and go to the field with the other Marines. He was never required to do that in the past. Some units just do more than others.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
You people are forgetting one basic principle about the Army…everyone is a Soldier FIRST! It doesn't matter what job they have, in combat, everyone has the responsibility to pick up a rifle and assault through an objective. You can't do that if you're not in shape to do so. That's why the APFT has been one standard for ALL MOS's, and still is. To change it would ensure that only Combat Arms personnel are the only ones fit for combat.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I was under the impression that we all are soldiers first. The enemy doesn't discriminate based on MOS they see one uniform and one army. We all should be physically fit to the same standard even if that standard is raised.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA I agree that we are all soldiers and should be able to react to contact but i am very cautious of underestimating the enemy. Some are smarter than others. Some can see a easy target but then some will just take a shot when ever they can.
(1)
(0)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA
Agreed 100%, as a Combat Arms Combat Veteran I totally understand, only the comment by CPT (Join to see) was meant to bring together, not separate or "split hairs". Especially when it comes to combat, the subject matter is touchy, quickly it becomes a "I know better" type of situation.
BTW: The Black Spade is also used by a "special" group out of the Eastern USA but is not found on any Army unit roster...very interesting.
Be well and thank you again!
Steven
BTW: The Black Spade is also used by a "special" group out of the Eastern USA but is not found on any Army unit roster...very interesting.
Be well and thank you again!
Steven
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What I gathered from your statement was - and correct me if I didn't get it clearly - these insurgents "would attack *anyone* else" who was considered an easier target. I do agree that and underestimate of their recon abilities and intelligence analysis can be easily made but it still goes to my last point. In the case that any unit its attacked, ambushed, etc. every soldier should fall within the physical capabilities to withstand any possible situation that can be thrown at them. Granted, you will not see the same operational force in certain units as that of any Infantry unit but in the case that any soldier needs to be called on(likely or not) they should be ready. Additionally, everyone should be equipped with the physical capabilities to execute long distance movement in the event a contingency is made to do so. It is a touchy subject as SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA stated so I guess we'll see how exactly this is pans out once less ambiguous information is put out.
(0)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
1LT Rosa you made the argument for me thanks. It seams the enemy already knows not to pick a fight with our infantry. I fail to see where they are not sufficiently trained? I only ask what need is their for more rigorous training if that is the case?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google