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
0
0
0
Soldiers are Soldiers...regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, sex....there should be one standard. If you want to be held to a higher standard...then take the walk and try for one of the Special Operations MOS's or a SMU. But to have different standards for different MOS's...that's not the answer. That will further divide POGs vs front line Soldiers, not to mention...lowering standards for certain MOS's.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I personally don't think that this should be impleted because it would take away from standards
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am curious as how it would take area from the standard. If they used the APFT and added event for some branches like infantry how would that take away from anything.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's my opinion we would be setting ourselves up for failure. When everything goes to hell, every single Soldier becomes a rifleman. We should all remember PFC Lynch and what can happen when Soldiers cannot defend themselves, or are otherwise not proficient in the basics. The same applies for fitness.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
But she did meet the current APFT standards. We have the same standard wouldn't you think we have already set ourselves up for failure.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), I was only using that as an illustration of the detrimental effects of having different standards for different MOS. We can honestly look at how different occupational specialties train and what is expected of them, and see a radical disparity across the force. In that case, the entire unit was untrained. How many 42A's spend time learning and practicing individual or squad movement? Again, that's just an example.
My point remains, we must train to one standard in all aspects of fitness and basic combat skills. Just because someone might be a quartermaster, it doesn't mean they are precluded from fighting.
My point remains, we must train to one standard in all aspects of fitness and basic combat skills. Just because someone might be a quartermaster, it doesn't mean they are precluded from fighting.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The logistics alone make this a bad idea. How many different "standards" would be developed? The changes to DA PAM 611-21 and AR 40-501 would be drastic. Who would determine what the "standards" for each MOS are? The standards are already outlined in DA Pam 611-21, for each MOS by grade. Additionally the PULHES defines the acceptable standard of fitness to remain in said MOS. This is altogether different than what the APFT measures. By the way, it is the Army Physical Fitness test, which would require a name change, as it would no longer be the "Army PFT" but the “MOS PFT,” or something similar. Last but least, a complete rewrite of the recently rewritten FM 7-22, and any other FM's, TC's and the like that are related to the subject of "Army fitness."
For a more practical matter, when a grader is getting ready to administer the APFT to Soldier, would said grader need to ask the Soldier "what is your MOS?" Then the grader would have to flip to the appropriate "grading standard by MOS/Gender PFT score card." Wouldn't the overall concept be more beneficial for the Army to just “train physical fitness to the Army standard?” Units are allowed to have “organizational fitness goals or unit levels of fitness.” Which do in and of themselves set a new standard.
For a more practical matter, when a grader is getting ready to administer the APFT to Soldier, would said grader need to ask the Soldier "what is your MOS?" Then the grader would have to flip to the appropriate "grading standard by MOS/Gender PFT score card." Wouldn't the overall concept be more beneficial for the Army to just “train physical fitness to the Army standard?” Units are allowed to have “organizational fitness goals or unit levels of fitness.” Which do in and of themselves set a new standard.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I've seen this argument for YEARS on the "other side" of this issue with the Air Force Intel community. All Branches BEGIN with a standardized PT program...if a linguist, or weather, medical, or any other AFSC (MOS) who is required to sit at a desk more than not gets to the point they can no longer meet that original standard (and are not injured of course), then this has become a personal choice NOT to put the work in as an active uniform wearer, no matter what the shift or hours. This is typically followed by an "overage of hours" argument...when you sit in a "dirtbox" for extended periods of time, there are typically NO set hours and we get what we get, but ALWAYS seem to find away to keep sharp and fit and on point. Perhaps units SHOULD design a combat-ready higher level standard for this reason and for that I give the thumbs up...but for those who would ask for a more lenient standard for those most likely desk-jockeying...NEGATIVE...to say a "big brain" MOS gets a relaxed PT standard is ludacris, and this just screams "I may be a little more intelligent than the average Joe, but I'm also a tick lazy and can't/won't properly prioritize, so I'll just play the 'smart' card and see if that flies"...but that's just my two cents worth mostly on the flip side of this question...opinions have always varied....good thread...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Certain units, in the AF anyway, have higher PT standards such as special forces, but you still need a baseline standard for all.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You are right. I think that this is lost in the microcosm that is their own unit. If you look military wide every branch of the military already does this to some regard. The Navy with their SEALS and as you stated the AF with their SOF units.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I doubt that would ever happen because it would be too complicated to manage it. The APFT standards are already the minimum standards. I believe all MOS's already have additional physical demand requirements, in addition to the APFT standards, that you're referring to. For example, my MOS (44B) is classified at the heavy exertional level by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). During my AIT and again while I was instructing before I retired, our solders, airmen, marines students had to prove they could lift and carry a certain amount of weight individually and as a two-person carry. You could also reference the physical profile requirements for each MOS (PULHES). Significant changes in a soldiers PULHES could result in a reclassification or separation. I hope this helps!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is the absolute worst idea I've ever heard! The APFT should remain one standard for all. As a matter of fact the APFT should be changed to one standard for males and females. The problem is everyone gets wrapped around this MOS thing. Your MOS is more like a task that you were assigned. You're told to do it, but it doesn't excuse you from doing other duties. The Army is a ground force and every Soldier in it should be trained in enough ground tactics that should they be needed to replace their battle buddy who God forbid was shot and/or killed that they can have the basic skill to fill the requirement. For some strange reason, and I guess we can chock it up to laziness, folks in the Army started thinking that their MOS was the end all to be all and that would be all that they would do for a career. However, this goes against the intent and purpose of why the Army was created. The Army is here to defend America and win wars for America. This is why we train and we all should train the same. However, if you have an MOS that requires you to utilize extra equipment such as satellites and things of the sort then you should be training on both your satellites and your Army Warrior Tasks, because although you are by MOS/task a satellite guy, by the nature of the culture and career that you volunteered for you are a Soldier and a warfighter first.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would say that the Army was created to fight. The Army was started with 10 rifle companies. They were all riflemen. I would agree that we are all riflemen and should all train on their 40 warrior tasks and 9 battle drills. I would then question it is fair for Air Assault school to require a Ruck March and Ranger to both a 5 mile run along with a pulls ups?
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
That is true, all were riflemen. All specialties fought when the Army was created. The term riflemen is a ridiculous one though. We are all Warriors, we are all Soldiers, we just have different tasks that we have been given to accomplish. However if need be we should all be trained to accomplish the same tasks.
Now as for the question of whether or not it's fair for Air Assault school to require a ruck march or Ranger school to require you to complete a 5 mile run along with pull ups, my answer is yes it is very fair. Why? Because that's what they want you to do in order to earn their badge and to earn their tab. Can I train a regular Joe to do Ranger tasks? Yes I can. Give me a task list and I can train a Soldier to do anything. Can I award Joe a Ranger tab? Nope, they got to go to Ranger school for that and meet their requirements so that they can earn that tab.
Now on to the subject of standards for testing (APFT-wise)vs standards for meeting your unit's METL. These are two totally different things. The type of unit you are in dictates your training plan on what task should be performed by whom(such as how cooks cook the food or how grunts breach the house). This should never be confused with creating different physical fitness standards between MOSs, because once again a Soldier is a Soldier and that joker should be fit enough to perform any task given to him/her. I should be able to insert a Soldier anywhere in my formation after I've given them the proper training and they should be able to do what I have sent them to do. This is what the Army use to be and it worked. Nowadays, Soldiers have been fooled to believe that their MOS is their job. It's gotten so bad to where you hear these jokers tell a senior "that's not what I went to AIT for!" This never flew in the Army I came into. If you were told that you were going to be a grenadier in an Infantry squad and you were a 92Y by MOS, then your ass had better pay attention to your team leader and squad leader's block of instruction, because you are now a grenadier and all because the Commander said so and the 1SG made it happen!!! It's great now that we allow Soldiers to do their MOS-trained jobs, but Soldiers should never get it twisted. Whatever slot you are put into, that is now your job and you will be proficient in it. I'm pretty sure that with all the QMPs and QSPs that we will begin to see the Army go back to doing this. We will also see the end of contractors doing curbside trash pickup and the Soldiers will be back driving around post while they are on Staff Duty conducting police call.
The luxurious days will be over soon and we have that Admin clerk that can kick in doors and kill the enemy at 1000 yards once again all while typing a memorandum and shining his boots preparing for inspection. The glory days will soon return as we will have to go back to doing more with less.
Now as for the question of whether or not it's fair for Air Assault school to require a ruck march or Ranger school to require you to complete a 5 mile run along with pull ups, my answer is yes it is very fair. Why? Because that's what they want you to do in order to earn their badge and to earn their tab. Can I train a regular Joe to do Ranger tasks? Yes I can. Give me a task list and I can train a Soldier to do anything. Can I award Joe a Ranger tab? Nope, they got to go to Ranger school for that and meet their requirements so that they can earn that tab.
Now on to the subject of standards for testing (APFT-wise)vs standards for meeting your unit's METL. These are two totally different things. The type of unit you are in dictates your training plan on what task should be performed by whom(such as how cooks cook the food or how grunts breach the house). This should never be confused with creating different physical fitness standards between MOSs, because once again a Soldier is a Soldier and that joker should be fit enough to perform any task given to him/her. I should be able to insert a Soldier anywhere in my formation after I've given them the proper training and they should be able to do what I have sent them to do. This is what the Army use to be and it worked. Nowadays, Soldiers have been fooled to believe that their MOS is their job. It's gotten so bad to where you hear these jokers tell a senior "that's not what I went to AIT for!" This never flew in the Army I came into. If you were told that you were going to be a grenadier in an Infantry squad and you were a 92Y by MOS, then your ass had better pay attention to your team leader and squad leader's block of instruction, because you are now a grenadier and all because the Commander said so and the 1SG made it happen!!! It's great now that we allow Soldiers to do their MOS-trained jobs, but Soldiers should never get it twisted. Whatever slot you are put into, that is now your job and you will be proficient in it. I'm pretty sure that with all the QMPs and QSPs that we will begin to see the Army go back to doing this. We will also see the end of contractors doing curbside trash pickup and the Soldiers will be back driving around post while they are on Staff Duty conducting police call.
The luxurious days will be over soon and we have that Admin clerk that can kick in doors and kill the enemy at 1000 yards once again all while typing a memorandum and shining his boots preparing for inspection. The glory days will soon return as we will have to go back to doing more with less.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why? What has changed that the Army needs to come up with this decision? The Army used to think more like the Marines when it came to fitness, training, & readiness. All are riflemen first, MOS is secondary. Would this mean only infantry PT qualified people will be deployed in combat job & non-PT qual'ed won't be sent to fulfill needed combat positions. My unit in Iraq, our platoon came from different units with a wide variety of MOSs & all made into combat MPs. We had all passed a standard PT & were fit enough to deploy after less than 2 months of train up. Having all soldiers meeting a specific set of standards is vital & it keeps down the complications of different standards for different people. I used to be in the intelligence field & then in combat arms. I've seen people in POG units who could run circles around most combat arms people. If they can do that, then others can meet the basic PT standards set forth for the entire Army.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What I don't understand is why is everyone holding the infantry as the standard. They are not. This is yet another that is referring to soldiers that not infantry being lesser. I would not agree at all. There is a soldier standard. Not an infantry standard. Now if the Chief of the Infantry wanted to raise the bar for all infantry in the Army why not. Should others feel anything. No they shouldn't.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is not a good idea at all. Every Soldier has to meet a base standard of fitness regardless of MOS. So if a Soldier is in a "non-PT Intensive MOS" but assigned to a combat arms unit, does he/she have to participate in and pass the combat arms test, or the MOS specific one? Doesn't the STP have exercises to address enhancing combat arms PT? 88M's aren't combat arms, but don't they need a specific level of fitness to operate convoy vehicles for extended periods of time and over uneven terrain?
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
If the standard APFT standard in place and was used for everyone as it is now but in certain units/MOSs added a specific event would that work?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google