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
3
3
0
No. I completely disagree with this. We are all soldiers first and should be held accountable to the exact same standards...in the blink of an eye your buddy could drop and all of a sudden your "MOS" changes completely.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am not show sure about that. So by with that being said could I then be a Doctor if needed? That is an MOS in the Army and we are both officer. It isn't right that he is a doctor and is held to have higher expectations of training? Aren't we all the same. So I could practice medicine right?
You MOS never changes. Everyone in the Army is a soldier. React to conduct is a soldier battle drill. Now, how often have you sent up a support by fire with a squad of m240s? Or have you conducted a raid to grab a HVT? We are not all the same. Not everyone is a fighter. That is ok. I love support folk. I could use a soldier like you. I just hurt my shoulder and the PA hear told me not ot lift for six weeks. It is killing me. But not everyone is infantry. The infantry is much more than just shooting people.
You MOS never changes. Everyone in the Army is a soldier. React to conduct is a soldier battle drill. Now, how often have you sent up a support by fire with a squad of m240s? Or have you conducted a raid to grab a HVT? We are not all the same. Not everyone is a fighter. That is ok. I love support folk. I could use a soldier like you. I just hurt my shoulder and the PA hear told me not ot lift for six weeks. It is killing me. But not everyone is infantry. The infantry is much more than just shooting people.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) I like SSG (Join to see) 's point. And yes, in the blink of an eye and in strange circumstances, you could very clearly end up needing to do the job of almost any MOS, including a surgeon. I'm sure you know this already, given your background and deployment experience. In your doctor example, you might not be able to be licensed to practice medicine, but if there's no doctor around, and your medic is down, and you're the guy on the spot, its easy to think that you might need to do some very doctor-like tasks beyond what you're trained to do as a combat lifesaver or first responder.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Its not so much that the MOS changes, but the tasks or missions at hand to "Make it happen". Again, should battle worn leaders be disqualified from promoting because their shoulder is out, or cant run fast enough anymore ? Promotions are responsibilities and authority to drive the mission to successful completion, should not be dependent on if snuffy can run faster then Jones.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I can see this for cutters. If you're a surgeon, I really don't care about your 2 mile run time.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) I disagree, for a couple reasons. 1) Surgeons may be surgeons, but in the Army, they are Soldiers, and I believe our Soldiers should be physically fit (referencing similar observations about fat doctors mentioned by John Russell; 2) It seems your premise is that all surgeons do is surgery; what about those docs that find themselves assigned for a deployment as a surgeon for an Infantry battalion in combat. Its very possible that such a surgeon might be required to move on foot in austere conditions to set up a forward battalion aid station in support of a mission of some sort. Having lower standards for folks like surgeons would ensure mission failure. 3) Surgeons do physically demanding work. Certainly being an out-of-shape surgeon negatively impacts that surgeons ability to do his/her assigned duty?
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) Didn't mean to suggest that I actually agree with the proposal, only saying that it's about the only group that I could understand it for.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC William Laws By that logic, couldn't we argue that the skill of the linguist or the cyber defender or the mechanic or the whatever should take precedence? Doctors are highly educated, highly trained specialists; so are all these other skilled MOSs. Thoughts?
MAJ (Join to see) Same question to you.....why would surgeons be the only group that you could understand this for? There are so many other highly skilled, highly educated groups in the Army (pilots, for example, or, I don't know, FAOs). I really see this MOS-based approach as a can of worms that isn't worth opening. And, other than surgeons, what do you think of the MOS-based approach? Good idea or bad?
MAJ (Join to see) Same question to you.....why would surgeons be the only group that you could understand this for? There are so many other highly skilled, highly educated groups in the Army (pilots, for example, or, I don't know, FAOs). I really see this MOS-based approach as a can of worms that isn't worth opening. And, other than surgeons, what do you think of the MOS-based approach? Good idea or bad?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC William Laws I missed your initial post--we share the same viewpoint about leaving the APFT as it is. I do think that for a very long time things like APFT failure and failing body weight standards were overlooked; I think this has been the case since I was commissioned. I also think this is changing now as the Army shrinks, and we're looking for any discriminating factor such as previous APFT failure or previous height/weight failure as a basis for involuntary separation.
We see this in the data: In 2013, 1,379 soldiers were let go over the PT test, up from 1,287 in 2012 and just 497 in 2011. Weight-related separations jumped from 870 in 2011 to 1,815 in 2012 but stayed flat at 1,823 in 2013. (http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20140827/NEWS/308270077/Promotion-board-Raters-fudging-facts-senior-NCOs) (somehow our senior NCOs keep getting taller, which I've posted about on RallyPoint previously).
We see this in the data: In 2013, 1,379 soldiers were let go over the PT test, up from 1,287 in 2012 and just 497 in 2011. Weight-related separations jumped from 870 in 2011 to 1,815 in 2012 but stayed flat at 1,823 in 2013. (http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20140827/NEWS/308270077/Promotion-board-Raters-fudging-facts-senior-NCOs) (somehow our senior NCOs keep getting taller, which I've posted about on RallyPoint previously).
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
You bring up an excellent point of the 'same level of fitness', but at the same time, it must be a type of fitness. I'm a 46 Series, a Military journalist, and the joke for us is "What are we going to do? See how many shutter snaps and quotes we can write in two minutes?"
The honest truth is that the military level of fitness should not be lessened or changed from a standard. We all understand that our jobs are different. We understand that the physical and mental endurance are different as well. But, the core idea is the minimum level of fitness and strength that we all possess. Take away that basic level and the functionality of a unit comprised of several different MOS is going to have issues.
I am on board for testing and training MOS skills, but we are all rifleman first, and need to keep those standards in place.
The honest truth is that the military level of fitness should not be lessened or changed from a standard. We all understand that our jobs are different. We understand that the physical and mental endurance are different as well. But, the core idea is the minimum level of fitness and strength that we all possess. Take away that basic level and the functionality of a unit comprised of several different MOS is going to have issues.
I am on board for testing and training MOS skills, but we are all rifleman first, and need to keep those standards in place.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) I'm a 48C, which is a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Western Europe. Us FAOs joke a bit about what an MOS-specific FAO test would be; we usually come up with something involving intoxication and overeating (given that alcohol and gourmet food are often involved in representational functions) or chair-sitting and typing endurance. I agree---we should have one standard, simple APFT. I've tried to count the number of Army MOSs, but get lost; how many specific APFTs are we going to need, and how much money are we spending to develop said APFTs?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
And, I think that is the rub, as they say. There is a difference between theater specific training (Your IED lanes, UXO detection, room clearing procedures, etc.) and trying to implement MOS-required tests. It is difficult enough to correlate a Soldier's information and compare it to another for a board, let alone to try and compare two Soldiers from different MOS who score differently on MOS-specific fitness levels.
I would rather implement more MOS training, and ease the availability of schools for my Soldiers, than try and change the straight-forward nature of the APFT. of
I would rather implement more MOS training, and ease the availability of schools for my Soldiers, than try and change the straight-forward nature of the APFT. of
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Everyone is acting like these MOS based standards don't already exist. God forbid if you are an 11B in an airborne unit and you don't score a 270....especially if you have any aspirations of going to any school besides bus driver.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It certainly helps to have a team of medics that can lift more than their body weight. It would be great to see more mission focused fitness than the standard PU, SU, Run test to assess if a soldier is fit for moving/carrying casualties. Dead lifts would be a great assessment tool.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
We need a Spartan type test, given a weapon of choice, and 7 days in the wild with minimal provisions...you must be able to fend for yourself...
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am so down. We could do it in Fort Benning and you would have to kill a wild boar. Something like this but with a knife.
Father, son bag charging 700-pound boar in North Carolina
It's the most pork south of Washington D.C.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
700 lb boar...I definitely need a weapon of choice, and it wouldnt be a knife...well maybe a Kuhkri knife.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think instead of lowering the standard for pt based on the mos, we should increase the knowledge standard and make each soldier take a subject matter test for their respective mos
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see)
Would you being the females to the male standard or would you bring the males to the female standard, and at what age group?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Making different APFT standards would cause a lot of issues. You can't have different standards per MOS because many people would try to re-class to those job's with a lower standard. As 42A, I know my job is not as physically demanding as most, however, part of being a military professional is remaining fit. My standards should be just as high as any other MOS because we are all professionals.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I don't think it would see an exodus from MOSs. You have fighters, or pipe hitters, that only want to do that. I really couldn't see myself doing much else than infantry or SF.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Here’s a thought, why not focus on get Soldiers to effectively passing the standard APFT. The United States Army is a lifestyle, and physical fitness is a component of it. Regardless of the MOS, Soldiers must maintain an optimal level of physical and medical readiness at all times. What you put into it, is what you get out of it. As leader, we must establish an effect physical fitness program that develops and challenges our Soldiers to be physically fit to meet the demands of on the battlefield, and to function in austere environments. Soldiers must embrace this and challenge themselves too. It is also their individual responsibility too. If MOS is a concern, then integrating MOS specific tasks during PT. Last time I checked adversaries or foes are not discriminating us based on MOS or anything else. We need to just close this topic, and focus on being Soldiers for once. What are we going to tailor next, MOS socks and t-shirts? How about throw in designated MOS headbands and wristbands.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I do believe that they infantry has officially endorsed Fox river socks and we do have Combat shirts already. I like the idea of the headbands. I do agree that we are all eligible to be combats on the field of battle but I question if some are expected to perform at a higher level than others and how do we address this.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I believe we address it by promoting those that meet standards and can lead in all things including PT. A good leader will push their soldiers in PT to be at a level thier MOS needs them to be at and develop soldiers to live the army life on thier off time. The enemy doesn't descriminate as the MSG said so let's not focus on changing PT tests but the mindset of our soldiers that they will want to surpass What is acceptable and go for more in all areas of thier lives.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google