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
I think this could be a good idea if it happens. Granted, there needs to be at least a minimum for the entire Army to abide by (and let's be real, the minimum needs to be a higher standard than the current joke-of-an-APFT minimum), but having PT standards representative of your job could be an excellent idea.
(1)
(0)
We need to have hand to hand combat... To the death.
Then we wouldn't have to have any draw downs, and only the fittest would survive.
And the Generals could figure out how to give dishonorable discharges to the losers, so they could avoid paying out benefits.
I'll make E-10 yet!
Then we wouldn't have to have any draw downs, and only the fittest would survive.
And the Generals could figure out how to give dishonorable discharges to the losers, so they could avoid paying out benefits.
I'll make E-10 yet!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I wonder why no one has recommended (either that or I missed it) having an additional or second test for the Combat Arms MOS'. The regular Army APFT would be required for everyone to pass (current grading standard) and then have Combat Arms MOS' be required to do an entirely separate physical fitness test consisting of events related to what you could expect to see in a combat situation. Obstacle course in some version of “battle rattle” maybe…..?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Although we are not trained as proficient as an infantry soldier, we are "infantry first". We have to keep in mind, when the 1st line falls, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th line need to know how to react. With that being said, if an additional combat pt test is being considered, it should be considered for EVERY MOS.
The only difference I would suggest, is for Combat MOS to be held at a higher standard like 70% to pass instead of 60%.
The only difference I would suggest, is for Combat MOS to be held at a higher standard like 70% to pass instead of 60%.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In SOF units, the army standard is raised by 10%. Still the APFT, but you must maintain 70% in each event, though this isn't a challenge for most SOF personnel.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is a no brainer. The standard should be raised for infantry type units, no way someone with a 180 should be allowed to remain in an infantry unit. Also no way a 179 should be chaptered out of a cryptolinguist position, or a personnel unit. The other major factor is the integration of females, should be a standard MOS based PT test with equal standards.
I would recommend creating a regiment test rather than an MOS, Infantry/Engineers/Armor/Finance, etc. The test would be based on your unit type. So if you are a mechanic in a ranger Bat you need to meet the ranger standard. If you are a mechanic in a personnel unit, you meet the personnel standards. A mechanic in a mechanic unit you meet the mechanic standard.
The unit based PT would be needed to be able to facilitate the test.
Also as the test should be based around MOS type requirements, why not use the EIB for infantry, weight lifting and cardio for mechanics, and a basic standard for cubicle (contractor) units.
We need to stop purging our support personnel by forcing them to sit in a chair for 10 hours a day then stop their promotions because they can't run. Particuarly after we have just taught them farsi and given them a top secret clearance.
I would recommend creating a regiment test rather than an MOS, Infantry/Engineers/Armor/Finance, etc. The test would be based on your unit type. So if you are a mechanic in a ranger Bat you need to meet the ranger standard. If you are a mechanic in a personnel unit, you meet the personnel standards. A mechanic in a mechanic unit you meet the mechanic standard.
The unit based PT would be needed to be able to facilitate the test.
Also as the test should be based around MOS type requirements, why not use the EIB for infantry, weight lifting and cardio for mechanics, and a basic standard for cubicle (contractor) units.
We need to stop purging our support personnel by forcing them to sit in a chair for 10 hours a day then stop their promotions because they can't run. Particuarly after we have just taught them farsi and given them a top secret clearance.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
It's military historically we only change when there is no other way. Unfortunatley we will continue to loose the argument until most of our support services are contractors with zero physical fitness requirement, no UCMJ, and the ability to say no to a task.
Contractors on the battlefield isn't going anywhere.
Lastly the only promotions that use points are regional so jumping MOS's or finding an easier unit won't get you promoted any easier nor will being in a ranger BAT as a mechanic hurt you, as you compete with your regional peers. In regards to the riflemen first Marine comments, the USMC has NEVER had support personnel ever seen a Marine medic NOPE. They don't have support personnel so their arguments agains the Army are without grounding. We need to improve our standards for combat arms while allowing those who can and want to serve but don't have the genetics to be infantry be allowed to fill technical positions that otherwise would need to be filled with civilians. I'm not talking about lowering the standards I'm talking about raising them where they should be raised and finding a great method to retain Soldiers that fit into other roles.
Also explain why a mechanic that can run but not lift weights or install a heavy transmission gets promoted faster than the mechanic who is very proficient at his job but only passes the run rather than excelling. Mechanics shouldn't be promoted based on what makes a good infantry Soldier.
Contractors on the battlefield isn't going anywhere.
Lastly the only promotions that use points are regional so jumping MOS's or finding an easier unit won't get you promoted any easier nor will being in a ranger BAT as a mechanic hurt you, as you compete with your regional peers. In regards to the riflemen first Marine comments, the USMC has NEVER had support personnel ever seen a Marine medic NOPE. They don't have support personnel so their arguments agains the Army are without grounding. We need to improve our standards for combat arms while allowing those who can and want to serve but don't have the genetics to be infantry be allowed to fill technical positions that otherwise would need to be filled with civilians. I'm not talking about lowering the standards I'm talking about raising them where they should be raised and finding a great method to retain Soldiers that fit into other roles.
Also explain why a mechanic that can run but not lift weights or install a heavy transmission gets promoted faster than the mechanic who is very proficient at his job but only passes the run rather than excelling. Mechanics shouldn't be promoted based on what makes a good infantry Soldier.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1LT Rosa,
As someone who has led and worked at multiple levels from platoon, to Corps and up to multi-national task forces, I can tell you that ALL MOSs should have a unified standard, which should be based on the rigorous demands of combat, not just on their specific duty specialty. I have been on multiple combat deployments and those "desk job" MOS that you seem to infer don't need as high a physical standard (i.e. 42A) as do others (i.e. 11B) often find themselves in very non-MOS-typical roles when in a combat environment (I am referring to your alluding to requirements above and beyond the base PT test standard). I have personally been on a variety of mission types in combat zones where drivers, gunners, and others have been a mix of MOSs, and EVERY one of them had to be able to perform to the same combat standards (i.e. be better than the enemy or end up dead). The enemy doesn't care if you are a "desk jockey", a "wrench monkey", a "snake eater", or any other nickname various MOSs may have. The enemy has one goal in mind ... to KILL YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU.
If a specific MOS field wants to add a separate physical requirement, that's something that would best be done while in that MOS school, such as AIT or a MOS-specific qualification course (i.e. Ranger, Special Forces, etc.). If you tried to add these requirements to the "official" PT test for a given service, you no longer have a service standard. Then how would you weigh the PT achievements of one MOS in that service against any other? There would not be a common base against which to measure that aspect of a service member's performance and you could potentially prejudice a fully-qualified service member's chance for advancement based on an artificially unbalanced "test standard". And by definition, if you have a variety of PT test requirements that differ by MOS, you no longer have a service "standard".
I fully agree with you that the physical requirements of each MOS are not equal to all the others. However, the standard service PT test is not the place in which to test MOS-specific standards of performance.
As someone who has led and worked at multiple levels from platoon, to Corps and up to multi-national task forces, I can tell you that ALL MOSs should have a unified standard, which should be based on the rigorous demands of combat, not just on their specific duty specialty. I have been on multiple combat deployments and those "desk job" MOS that you seem to infer don't need as high a physical standard (i.e. 42A) as do others (i.e. 11B) often find themselves in very non-MOS-typical roles when in a combat environment (I am referring to your alluding to requirements above and beyond the base PT test standard). I have personally been on a variety of mission types in combat zones where drivers, gunners, and others have been a mix of MOSs, and EVERY one of them had to be able to perform to the same combat standards (i.e. be better than the enemy or end up dead). The enemy doesn't care if you are a "desk jockey", a "wrench monkey", a "snake eater", or any other nickname various MOSs may have. The enemy has one goal in mind ... to KILL YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU.
If a specific MOS field wants to add a separate physical requirement, that's something that would best be done while in that MOS school, such as AIT or a MOS-specific qualification course (i.e. Ranger, Special Forces, etc.). If you tried to add these requirements to the "official" PT test for a given service, you no longer have a service standard. Then how would you weigh the PT achievements of one MOS in that service against any other? There would not be a common base against which to measure that aspect of a service member's performance and you could potentially prejudice a fully-qualified service member's chance for advancement based on an artificially unbalanced "test standard". And by definition, if you have a variety of PT test requirements that differ by MOS, you no longer have a service "standard".
I fully agree with you that the physical requirements of each MOS are not equal to all the others. However, the standard service PT test is not the place in which to test MOS-specific standards of performance.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think we agree on this. I still believe that there should a standard APFT. Everyone should be held to the same base standard. You couldn't one for every MOS. I would like to add secondary events that would be an additional layer. It could only be used in reference to your MOS. A failure could result in attending MOS specific schools or duties. I know it would be challenging but most units already have something like this in place. If you fall out of a Ruck March in a leadership roll you will hear about it. Why not make a common standard.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The standard is not applied across MOS's, promotions points are based on MOS numbers. What use is a balanced test standard that is not used quantitativley for comparison.
I have seen several skill sets over the last 15 years find their way into contractor's hands who have no PT standard yet the enemy still has the same goal with them. Contractors are not likely to go away why hinder ourselves by disqualifying SGT John Doe, but Mr. John Doe can do the same job for three times the pay, is not subject to UCMJ, and is not required to perform, he's a civilian not a Soldier at that point.
I have seen several skill sets over the last 15 years find their way into contractor's hands who have no PT standard yet the enemy still has the same goal with them. Contractors are not likely to go away why hinder ourselves by disqualifying SGT John Doe, but Mr. John Doe can do the same job for three times the pay, is not subject to UCMJ, and is not required to perform, he's a civilian not a Soldier at that point.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Will you kick a skilled Neuro surgeon or heart surgeon out of the Army because he can not complete the PT test?????
Combat arms require higher level of fitness than more technical positions. Everyone needs to be fit, but in certain MOSs it is more important to mentally competent than physically so. Cyber Warfare for example, you want the smartest nerdiest in the country sitting at the computer protecting the computer infrastructure. I personally am a value to the Army for my ability to put soldiers back together after injury, not for my shooting abilities, or my ability to run and carry loads.
Maybe there can be a tiered PT test or scores.
Combat arms require higher level of fitness than more technical positions. Everyone needs to be fit, but in certain MOSs it is more important to mentally competent than physically so. Cyber Warfare for example, you want the smartest nerdiest in the country sitting at the computer protecting the computer infrastructure. I personally am a value to the Army for my ability to put soldiers back together after injury, not for my shooting abilities, or my ability to run and carry loads.
Maybe there can be a tiered PT test or scores.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thanks for being honest. I know we all think we all are "Like" infantry but that is only a pipe dream. We are all not the same. Doctors don't go to OCS, either do lawyers. So should we make them go to OCS to have this "One Standard?" It makes no sense. I agree with you. If the army thinks they are going to get a cyber warrior that is on par with what is out right now they are fooling themselves.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Single standard. The problem with multiple standars is you end up having NO standard. People start getting denied promotion/recommendation even though they meet the standards 'on the books'. It's just bad policy.
That's why a universal standard exists. You might tighten requirements to get into a specific school or training program, but anything else is just unenforcable.
That's why a universal standard exists. You might tighten requirements to get into a specific school or training program, but anything else is just unenforcable.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Wouldn't saying that men and women should be held to a different standards due to them being physiologically different be having two standards? What about the single standard? If there was a single standard there wouldn't be any variation for age or sex. If you expect less from a female why can't you expect more from an infantryman?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I don't expect any less from a female, or an aged soldier. I expect Physical Fitness. If the Army thinks one MOS needs more Physical Fitness than another MOS, then the Army should revisit the ENTIRE physical fitness standards.
Is the Service Member, Physically Fit? Their score is supposed to be representative of that.
An Infantryman doesn't always serve as an Infantryman. Nor does every other MOS. And creating a system where the HUNDREDS of Army MOS could each have their own individual requirements is just bad conceptually.
Is the Service Member, Physically Fit? Their score is supposed to be representative of that.
An Infantryman doesn't always serve as an Infantryman. Nor does every other MOS. And creating a system where the HUNDREDS of Army MOS could each have their own individual requirements is just bad conceptually.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Gordon Olayvar
The only difference between a male and female Marine Corps PFT is that the females perform a timed dead-hang from pull-up bars rather then pull-ups, they also perform crunches and a 3-mile run same as the males.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Yes, but they get 3 "extra" minutes on the run. Males cap at 18 minutes, females at 21.
So, no the only difference is not the timed dead-arm hang. 2/3rds of the test is modified in some way.
So, no the only difference is not the timed dead-arm hang. 2/3rds of the test is modified in some way.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think there should be an MOS-specific APFT if only because the common warrior tasks require a certain level of fitness for every Soldier, not just those from a certain MOS
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is a tough one, particularly because no unit is made up purley by one MOS. Overall, the Army should have one standard that must be met, period, end of story, by everyone. It speaks to the fact that at the end of the day, we're all Soldiers and must be able to perform to eliminate the enemy.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google