Does every MOS/Rate need the same level of fitness? What about an MOS/Rate specific PT test or events?

Whereas this may have some merit, as a 14 year ARNG soldier, I have seen administrating the APFT is hard enough doing MOS specific test would be a nightmare !

The APFT is pretty much a failure within the Army when you think of all the wasted man hours for all the soldiers involved giving the test and also those lucky enough to be in remedial PT program. What percentage of soldiers actually get off remedial PT and stay off. It's hard enough to even find competent leaders that will hold the standards during the test. On the officer side it seems even worse, you see the ones you know don't make tape and wouldn't be able to pass the APFT, but you don't see them in remedial of any sort. It seems it's only gotten worse, but yes I do think there are certain MOS's that should required more than the basic 180 P/F.

As with much that we see/hear in the main stream media/Army times, I am sure there is more to the story.

But, at face value, differentiating physical standards based on MOS is a not a good endeavor for the Army pursue (my opinion).

Let's look at what makes the Army special - taking members of society, with varied backgrounds (socio-economic, religious, etc) and building Soldiers with purpose. When we start setting different baselines between different MOS, that does nothing to build cohesion and teamwork in the organization. Before you know it, we'll start assigning different dress standards based on MOS, then religious beliefs, etc. It is a slippery slope.

Look at the Marines, every Marine is a rifleman first. Those skills and standards are at the core of their philosophy. Our APFT and fitness standards are universal across the force. Should there be MOS specific supplemental tests? No, I don't think so. Here is why: As a Battalion XO, my driver came from the S1 shop, a 42A. Given that a 42A's primary mission, how would you assess their ability to be a vehicle operator/maintainer, which includes TM/ -10 level requirements against a mechanic who's job it is to maintain vehicles? You can't, not fairly anyway.

I say give the leadership flexibility to the young NCOs to develop and train their troops to the appropriate physical fitness level. There is some incredible power in an organization when every leader, down to the Team level is rowing in the same direction, but that power is stifled with top driven excessive requirements. Commander's intent, periodic inspections and continuous engagement/feedback is how I'd pursue this, not a formal test.

That being said, a Combat Fitness assessment is a good idea in my opinion. Physical tasks under the rigor/scenario of combat requirements, separate from the APFT. Again, look at how the Marines do this separate assessment as well.

Well, first we have an Army standard that EVERYONE should meet. After that, it makes sense that certain MOS's will have additional requirements to be met. You would have (obviously) a different standard between an Delta Operator and a Cook. These things are already being done, I am not sure what we would need to change.

Yes infantry should have a lot more challenging pt test

I kinda hope so but at the same not. Imagine the nuance that would come about... I mean really, cav infantry and ada would have to bench munitions while supply would have to bench boxes, admin benching computers... God the agony

I agree with certain MOS/positions requiring different APFT standards. In a age of cyber warfare, we need more computer and network efficient personnel but sadly, we are not going to get the best of the best because they will not meet the requirements we presently have. Traditionally, we expect every Soldier to meet the same standard, however, there is an extreme difference between how a 11b and cyber Soldier wages war. I understand the objections and I also wish there was a way to get the best of the best in cyber warfare with the present APFT standards being met, but realistically, I just do not see it happening, which means we continue down the same path of spending lots of taxpayer's money on contractors, who, we have to save when it all goes down, because, they have no APFT standards to speak of.

I would have to say no to the question, and it is already defined by the army. DA Pam 611-21 already states it.
With that being said, in today's Army and the FLOT is no longer defined. Everyone has to meet the standards. We are and will continue to keep those that do not meet the standards of both ABCP and APFT.

Absolutely, unequivocally the answer is yes! End all be all at the end of the day every soldier regardless of MOS must be a rifleman. You must be able to win the battle with superior firepower and training. Ideas of separate standards based on MOS are idiotic. That's like saying admin clerks should have a lesser rifle qual than combat soldiers. If the last 12 years have taught us nothing they taught us that every MOS can find itself in the middle of a firefight. That any personnel male or female can find themselves in a hostile engagement at any time. If you have separate standards for the admin versus the pay clerk versus the medic then you are going to run into severe issues of personnel finding themselves at the wrong end of an engagement and in doing so endangering all the other people that trained to a combat standard. This is the army not the Girl Scouts. Fairplay and egalitarianism have no place. It's not for us to decide what training we think is required it's what training the army as a whole has to be prepared to do based on its overall mission not just our little piece of it.

Everyone arguing against MOS based PT tests for the sake of one standard: please remember that logic for age and gender.

Having MOS based pt tests would force us to reconsider our board procedures, as well. We would have to recognize and reward people for being proficient at their job, not on some universally lowered average standard.

I for the "what about the 42A tests?" crowd: they are already passing the "infantry pt test" despite being trapped behind a desk where their counterparts are walking the moor pool all day. Why not just admit the current standards are too lax on the hooah types?