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
There ought to be a minimum that everyone must meet. Anything more than that should be based on the required physical demands of specific MOS or duty position. As I understand, every soldier graduates from basic training as an infantryman. So everyone in the Army should as a minimum meet the physical requirements of an infantryman regardless of what other MOS they have.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think everyone meets a standard but I wouldn't go as far to say that everyone graduates an infantryman. They are a soldier. An infantryman is a specialized soldiers that uses advanced warfighting techniques. It would be like saying that every everyone pilot is a fighter pilot. They are all pilots but a pilot that flies a KC-135 Stratotanker really isn't a fighter pilot. The pilot a A-10 or a F-35 is the fighter.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Thanks for the correction. Though your example is somewhat flawed, I do get the point you're making. Thanks again.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Bad idea. So because your an admin never leave the wire person you don't have to be able to perform as well? Take a note from the Marines, they have a Combat Fitness Test on top of their regular fitness test it is aimed at everybody with the "every marine a rifleman" mentality. On the Navy side we have different requirements for different types of duty, specifically anybody going to a Naval Special Warfare team/unit is held to a higher standard and anybody screening for special duty like a Tier 1 unit has to pass their screening. Outside of that we are all held to the same standard.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What I don't understand is why would anyone reduce the standard. I would raise the standard for others. In most combat units they have an unofficial requirement above the standard 180. If a person can't get a 180 I think they need to seriously reconsider their choices in life. Maybe the military isn't the best place for them. When I was stationed at Fort Bragg I had to maintain a 270. If I got anything less it was detrimental to your wellbeing. What should happen is additional events added to certain personnel in the Army. Like as you were saying.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The fitness of todays incoming personnel are much less than years ago, the annual fitness testing of the Army across the board ensures minimal standards are met. Enhanced physical training at the unit level for special ops, infantry and other non-chair-borne ops increase the everyday ability of those units and their personnel.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I like the concept. There has been debate in the Marine Corps about dropping standards for officers infantry training because so many woman are being dropped. I think dropping any standards is wrong. However, I think we should have mos specific tests for qualification. Not in every mos, just combat mos. How many times have you had someone in the artillery that couldn't pick up a 110lb round. or a grunt that can hump a 50cal and their own pack. Have a basic physical test after basic/boot camp to see if they can cut it.
As for your branches physical fitness tests, keep it the same all around for all hands. But, the ground combat/support mos's should adjust their workouts to their needs. Like infantry doing more humping and obstacle courses with gear. Artillery focusing on upper body strength and endurance.
As for your branches physical fitness tests, keep it the same all around for all hands. But, the ground combat/support mos's should adjust their workouts to their needs. Like infantry doing more humping and obstacle courses with gear. Artillery focusing on upper body strength and endurance.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
One Army , One standard. This is the miliary. not a civilian job. Soldier first. MOS and rank second.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No matter how you set it up there is always going to be a minimal standard. Well. That's why you have right now. A minimum standard. Units already set up there own pt minimum. I have never been in a unit with a goal less than 270 No you didn't get kicked out of the army for having less than that but you were required to do extra pt and weren't allowed to go to certain schools or hold certain positions. Every Soldier ha to be able to shoot, move, and communicate no matter if he is outside the wire every day or one time in a thousand. If you lower the standard more than what it is there will just be more unfit people getting other Soldiers injured or killed because they can't do their job. The Army is overweight and out of shape as it is. The standard should be raised.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I thought we were all basic riflemen and soldiers first. Standards set us apart from civilians and should motivate us to be better physically rather than settling. We should strive to become stronger, mentally and physically, so that we can do what others cannot in time of need.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As I have reviewed this I thought of a possible issue that would need to be address and that is ensuring proper training at the unit level to ensure these standards can not only be meet but that soldiers can continue to meet these standards. All too often in my experience in the Airborne Infantry the only thing we did for PT day in and day out was run. I became an excellent runner but my push-ups always struggled and my sit-ups slowly declined throughout my time in service. I hear alot of "you should take care of it on your on time" and all that but why should I have to? Soldiers already work 10-12 hour days, why should they then have "homework" when PT is already conducted daily? Without properly trained trainers the only people who will be in combat arms MOS's are those in peak physical shape (but without maintenance you might lose them too).
Overall the army is going to have to rethink how it does PT but that is a different discussion in itself.
Overall the army is going to have to rethink how it does PT but that is a different discussion in itself.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As a Marine I think this is a horrible idea! Every military member (and I know they're not) should be able to meet the same minimum physical fitness requirements. When active I weightless in a 220 lbs at 6'2". Just about every bit of that was muscle. If I got shot it would be nice to know the smaller people in my unit could at least drag me to safety. Just a thought. I know the Marines operate differently than the Army, but c'mon, how many times have Army POG's found themselves in the thick of it like our Marine POG's have.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Careful, with gear that's 270+ lbs, how many females do you know that can move that? I think you can see where this is going. Saying if you can't move 270+ lbs you shouldn't be on a battlefield is essentially saying...
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
And I know/knew plenty of female Marines that could at least drag me out of harms way at the minimum. And that is exactly where it should go if you're in a branch that has not only remote, but very real chances of seeing combat. I won't apologize for that, it's a fact of life and a matter of life and death.
I've also known my fair share of male Marines that couldn't do not as well, and I didn't want them deployed with me. And they didn't. Our unit only took those that could perform ALL aspects of our job from maintaining comm gear to being able to physically do combat if needed.
I've also known my fair share of male Marines that couldn't do not as well, and I didn't want them deployed with me. And they didn't. Our unit only took those that could perform ALL aspects of our job from maintaining comm gear to being able to physically do combat if needed.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
Haha, then you would be limiting a lot more women. Ok, good, no one that weighs less than double what a full combat load on a hump, 80 lbs in te pack for the Marine Corps. And no one more than 2.5 times the combat load. That knocks me out, but it also knocks out a lot of the very people you're trying to defend here. Nice try. That's not the same as physical requirements.
1. I met height wand weight standards. Did I have to have body fat percentage done? Yes, and I passed everytime.
2. Did I meet the physical fitness standards? Sure as heck did, and then some.
3. Could I carry someone that was significantly larger than me? Yep, and I've done it more than once.
Your counter statement is only a cop out, not realistic. However having people meet physical standards that need to be met in a combat environment is absolutely realistic. I've met my fair share of smaller women and men that could carry/drag me to safety. That's means that your physical fitness is something you can change, your physical structure however is not as variable except by a smaller margin. If a person is too lazy to be concerned with getting into enough physical fitness so that they can perform in a combat situation, then perhaps they're in the wrong profession. Size should never be used as a cop out, mental strength, discipline, and physical conditioning can overcome size.
1. I met height wand weight standards. Did I have to have body fat percentage done? Yes, and I passed everytime.
2. Did I meet the physical fitness standards? Sure as heck did, and then some.
3. Could I carry someone that was significantly larger than me? Yep, and I've done it more than once.
Your counter statement is only a cop out, not realistic. However having people meet physical standards that need to be met in a combat environment is absolutely realistic. I've met my fair share of smaller women and men that could carry/drag me to safety. That's means that your physical fitness is something you can change, your physical structure however is not as variable except by a smaller margin. If a person is too lazy to be concerned with getting into enough physical fitness so that they can perform in a combat situation, then perhaps they're in the wrong profession. Size should never be used as a cop out, mental strength, discipline, and physical conditioning can overcome size.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
Lol, I see what you did there.
Actually I'm saying size doesn't matter, physical fitness does matter however.
Actually I'm saying size doesn't matter, physical fitness does matter however.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google