Should the Army support MOS specific PT tests? I personally don't agree with it. As an Infantryman, I think all PT tests should be the same. What do you think?

Should the Army support MOS specific PT tests?

1

0

Posted >1 y ago

While everyone debates about the PT test, I am going to physically train my body and read my ranger hand book while riding my spinner bike. LOL

(1)

Comment

(0)

SSG V. Michelle Woods

>1 y

Uhhhh yeah me too lol.

(1)

Reply

(0)

1

0

CPT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

PT test should be the same across the Army. If they had different standards for different MOSs why not change weapons qualification standards for MOSs. Hell, just take aways weapons from all support MOSs.

(1)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

SFC (Join to see)

>1 y

SSG Redondo, please come over here to DLI and tell them that the Army's perspective is that every Soldier is a fighter. In here is all about the language, anything else is an obstacle to language training

(0)

Reply

(1)

CPT (Join to see)

>1 y

SFC Dominguez,

And DLI is doing it right. When we rolled out on convoys in Iraq, there were 30-50 Soldiers wanting to man the gun - all qualified to do so. We had a 1SG that demanded that everyone who had less than a 270 APFT take remedial PT 6 days a week which added 2 hours to their 12 hour shifts (my guys were falling asleep at their desks). So even though we had a slew of PT studs and marksmen, we had just 3 Arabic linguists and only 2 of them were proficient enough for missions. When we got back to the rear, we were told there was no money to send linguists for refresher training, but we were burning cash on more PT equipment and range ops. It was like everyone's brains were erased and no one remembered all we went through because people were not capable in their basic MOS skills.

That said, fitness is important and there have to be ways to integrate basic fitness into the day. More than that is unnecessary and should be cut during language training.

(2)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

CPT Wolfer,

Your point about DLI is spot on. MOS proficiency leads to a better fighting force. That's the reason why we have MOS's in the first place. Otherwise, let's just send everyone to infantry basic and sort them out afterwards (some people would love this, but it is not efficient at all).

I went to DLI, and the constant language engagement was paramount to my success there. But when I arrived at my next unit (a year later) and requested refresher training from my unit, I was flattly told that they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and that they didn't need to send me to refresher training.

They also didn't need me to run 2 miles and do 2 minutes of pushups and situps, but I still had to do PT every day. But somehow, I still managed to be useful in my language while downrange, and I never had to do pushups in front of the enemy...

I guess I just made my point. CPT Wolfer, keep doing the right thing by your soldiers, and they will appreciate this. And the Army will also.

(1)

Reply

(0)

SFC (Join to see)

>1 y

CPT Wolfer

I understand your point about language refresher training, and I agree that is a priority, where I disagree with you is the mentality of I am a (Insert MOS here) first, we are all Soldiers and we have certain tasks that everyone needs to be proficient in to include PT, Weapons training, etc, if not, let's make all the (Insert MOS here again) civilians so we won't have to worry about them having to do anything else but their job

(0)

Reply

(0)

2

1

SPC Dan Goforth

Edited >1 y ago

Posted >1 y ago

SFC Lathrop, I wouldn't want 97 or 200+ different PT tests, but I do believe that the combat side (CMFs 11-19, and any medics, commo or maintenance personnel assigned to such units) should be able to set a higher standard, and maybe add an event or two. Some people just can't maintain the physical standards to be an infantryman or combat engineer, but would make great intel or commo soldiers, and shouldn't be assigned to ground combat line units.

(2)

Comment

(1)

MSG Bo Lathrop

>1 y

So what you're saying is that combat MOS's should be given a higher standard of physical demands than other Soldiers? I just don't feel as though that it right. That's like saying the a commo soldier assigned to an Infantry unit, that has to walk every mile with these soldiers shouldn't be held accountable for not maintaining the same physical readiness. I just don't agree.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SPC Dan Goforth

>1 y

SFC Lathrop, I'm saying the commo guy assigned to an infantry unit should maintain the infantry physical fitness standard. I'm saying, don't make ground combat units suffer, or the individual soldier suffer, because they don't have the physical capacity to meet the demands. 60-60-60 is great for the soldier sitting behind a desk most duty days, it means they're not as likely to keel over of a heart attack from lack of exercise. But that minimal PT score doesn't cover the demands of a unit that could need to ruck out 12 miles, bivouac and hold ground for who knows how long. The flip side of this equation is that if we required 80-80-80 for all soldiers, then we lose out on a lot of support services, because some people just don't have the ability to maintain that level of fitness. Only 1 in 4 high school graduates qualifies for military service as it is. I feel the Army would be better off not having people who can't meet the demands of an MOS/unit in that MOS/unit, and can do better than chapter for failure to adapt because someone got talked into a bad selection of MOS.

(0)

Reply

(0)

MSG Bo Lathrop

>1 y

The problem with your logic is that the commo guy, medic, etc... does not know if they are going to be in an infantry unit or not... If someone got talked into a bad MOS, that is not just the recruiters fault. As a former recruiter, I know from experience that applicants do a lot of research prior to joining the Army. Not all, but most do. It is a life changing decision. To not do research shows a lack of decision making skills. Some infantrymen can't pass PT tests, and guess what? They get kicked out. That's the way the Army works. If they can't find the motivation to work out on their own in order to keep up in a 12 mile road march, they should not be in the Army. Even desk jobs can work out at a gym after work, or put on a MOLLE ruck sack with some weight and start marching. I'm 5'5 119 pounds, if I can do it... anyone can.

(0)

Reply

(0)

0

SFC (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

same across the board....no difference between Soldiers

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

PVT John Williams

Posted >1 y ago

Oh hell no. They should be the same.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SSG Christopher Parrish

Posted >1 y ago

I think the APFT should be the same across the board. That doesn't mean there can't be an MOS specific test in addition, to make sure troops can meet those specific needs.

Take the PT scores required as an Infantryman and then compare them to RASP or SFQC, they are all different but everyone has to pass the basic Soldier PT test.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

Sgt Adam Jennings

Posted >1 y ago

Everyone should be held to the same physical standards regardless of MOS. There is no "in the rear with the gear" with this eeney we fight now.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SFC (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

The question should be should the PT test be the same across the military. As we are seeing more Joint Bases and there are more Joint Operation positions opening, how does it look when you have a soldier and a sailor or a marine and an airman works side by side but have different PT standards.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SFC (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

I don't agree. As a Personnel SGT I feel we need to have high standards because it is very easy to fall off when sitting behind a desk everyday. When I was an Active Component Soldier PT was the most important time of the day because that was the time of the day when a Company Can get together and do the same thing. Working in S-1 when a new soldier arrives to a unit The S-1 section is the first place where they report to. What kind of impression does it give a new soldier when the first person they come in to contact with on arrival has an appearance of being unfit?

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SSG(P) (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

I don't agree. Each MOS does a different job and has different requirements. Two MOS' that I know-- 15U and 42A for examples:

Chinook rotor blades weigh upwards of 300 pounds. Sometimes you only have two people to carry them. If you are the one on the inboard end, you get the heavier end. Also, passing equipment up from and down to the ground. Yeah it sounds easy, but it gets heavy and tiring. Climbing up and down the aircraft all day will tire you out. Everything on the CH-47 is heavy, bulky, odd-shaped, and awkward to handle.

Working in an S-1 shop, the heaviest thing you are going to lift is the copier toner cartridge or occasionally a case of paper. Physical demands are nearly nil.

Those who reclass to/from different MOS' may have a rude awakening should MOS-specific PT tests be instituted! All Soldiers need to have a base level of fitness. Thus this is why we have one standard. Now to get male and female standards the same...

(0)

Comment

(0)

Suspended Profile

Posted >1 y ago

Can someone please tell me where this USASOC policy that requires a 270 and above on your PT test is at? I've looked every where. Not even my S-1 can find it nor does the group s-1 know. Thanks

0

SGT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

I'm all for minimum standards for all Soldiers. However, The APFT is somewhat outdated. I don't ever remember reacting to contact then subsequently running two miles. Make a practical physical fitness test to establish the base line fitness level regardless of MOS then they can add to as needed.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SPC Andrew Craig

Posted >1 y ago

hell no , we should all have the same standard regardless of age,gender,or mos. you may call me a fatty pog for it but i think the only change should be to change the weight standard a bit, i have seen far to many excellent soldier (who max their pt tests) miss promotions,and get chaptered for weight standard violations, i think a standard is still needed, but it need tweeked a bit. for instance, i had a soldier spc locklear that got chaptered for overweight, but the guy was a powerlifter. the man could lift the front end of a hwmmv by himself but couldn't pass tape.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SGT Ben Keen

Posted >1 y ago

Again, this goes back to a standard being a true standard. Regardless of your MOS, if you are in this age bracket you are required to do many push ups and sit ups and run this fast to MEET THE STANDARD.

Another way to look at this, as a commo guy, I had reels of CX11230 cable that weighted a heck of a lot. We had to drive in 3, 5, 7, and 9 foot long grounding rods, carry antenna masts, lift the antenna heads, dig cable trenches and on and on. Would that mean the Signal Corps should have a PT test that reflects the necessary activities in regards to what ever 25 series the commo guy falls into? What would be the standard there? Run 2 miles with a 15 meter mast over your shoulder?

Again, the standard is THE standard for a reason. It should reflect the base line requirements to wear the uniform because really, at the end of the day, you can find yourself getting JOT on an MOS that you never thought you would be doing but is needed to fill a gap in the MTOE.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SFC Joe Ping

>1 y

No it should remain on PT Test for the whole Army.. next thing you know these people will want gender specific PT Test so that no one fails to qualify for a branch of the Army.. Although the current PT Test proves nothing, other than you can do push ups, and situps and run fast.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SGT Ben Keen

>1 y

Isn't the current APFT gender specific?

And I agree it really only shows one's ability to do push up, sit ups and run fast.

(1)

Reply

(0)

CPT (Join to see)

>1 y

SGT Keen,

You are looking at the issue in only one way: if the standards were lowered for some MOSs. That's not what I am saying. Would you still be against if a 250 APFT became the minimum for units with more physically demanding day-to-day requirements? A Soldier with a 180 is meeting the standard, but in most units, he/she would be treated like a PT failure because of the unreasonable attention placed on that single metric. In some units, a Soldier with that level of fitness would be a liability during day-to-day ops (not just combat). In others, it would be no issue. Wouldn't it make sense to guide Soldiers to the right MOSs and units by creating higher APFT minimums? At the same time, let's stop torturing Soldiers who meet the minimum standards and stop wasting training time and money on more PT for Soldiers who don't have jobs that require higher levels of fitness.

(1)

Reply

(0)

0

MSG Bo Lathrop

Posted >1 y ago

Wow.. I should have elaborated more in my initial response!

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

CPT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

Look througout history, specifically the last 13 years and see an Army at war. Why should an infantryman be held to a different standard than that of a noninfantryman? Does anyone remember Jessicia Lynch? Her and her unit were in a combat zone ambushed and they were not infantry unit!

Every soldier should be held to the same standard: officer, enlisted, and MOS specific because when we deploy we are a soldier first, and those who cannot physically take the punishment of deployment should be weeded out.

Thats not to say infantry doesn't do more PT, because they do, and I dont expect those who work, say in the pentagon or non deployed status, to be held to say an olympic athlete status, because we all have a role to play in the Army. But we can have a common standard of fitness because when you are on a convoy you are all the same to the enemy...

One last thought: How many non-infantry units deployed as infantry-type roles?

(0)

Comment

(0)

SSG (Join to see)

>1 y

Sir, how were Jessica Lynch and her unit affected by their fitness standards? I seem to recall them getting lost in a vehicle.

PT tests are a bunch of bull anyway. I have to do pushups, situps, and run. Ok, I work on those three areas only and bam pass my pt test. Unless the pt test mirrors the Crossfit games this will happen. The change needs to be in the mentality of the Soldier. If the Soldier wants to physically fit then the Soldier will be physically fit. Walk into the gym after work and take a look around. Some Soldiers do the minimum because they are not motivated to achieve more. The question should be how do we motivate Soldiers to become physically fit again from unit PT?

(3)

Reply

(0)

SGT Ben Keen

>1 y

There was more issues with that transportation company beyond PT. They failed to maintain their weapons properly, failed to do a proper pre-convoy inspection, had poor leadership involved and ignored S2/G2 reports of enemy movement in the area. No amount of PT could have fixed all that.

(1)

Reply

(0)

SSG (Join to see)

>1 y

True, I don't how it was brought into the conversation and I agree with your last comment.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

He was just using her as an example to convey that even non combat MOS soldiers see combat. Regardless of if her PT was part of the scenario, his point is still valid that all MOS are technically "combat" MOSs in the wars we fight today.

So we should all be held to the same standards because you never know when an 18Z will look at a 92G and say you are going on patrol with us tomorrow!

(0)

Reply

(0)

0

MAJ (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

As MOSs become open to all and we attempt gender neutral standards, yes. This will be away to ensure that all Soldiers are able to perform the same basic physical tasks.

(0)

Comment

(0)