4
4
0
APFT
MOS
Responses: 28
10
10
0
For the Corps, standards are all the same under the reason that every Marine is a rifleman.
(10)
(0)
6
6
0
SFC (Join to see)
I think it boils down to what do people want supporting their country? Do they want a more fit Soldier? Do they want smarter Soldiers? I do not think every Soldier will see combat but should be prepared physically and mentally. I would like to see the bar raised for the GT score and if that means standardizing it then by all means.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Absolutely not. As a QM Soldier, I have spent many years in Combat Arms units. We are held to the same standards as them.
(4)
(0)
SSG Joseph Phillips
A soldier is a soldier. I was a Personnel Admin Specialist in the 10th SFG (A). One day the Bn Cdr did PT with us. His comment to the Adjutant was "The Bn Hq does the best PT in the Bn.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
<p>Negative, I have now commanded in numerous units with varying MOS's, from 11B's to 88M's, and I can say that no matter what, it should not be different. After two deployments, I have learned that more often than not, once you hit ground, you will operate in a job that is outside of your MOS. Whether it's Truck Drivers performing Route Security missions to Infantrymen performing MP tasks. It's best that all PT tests maintain the same standard. </p><p> </p><p>Another note: If a Soldier was to switch MOS's, this would require a new requirement for MOS transfers of a APFT at a different standard.</p><p> </p><p>BLUF: No, keep PT Tests the same. I agree with one other comment that what we should look at is Gender Neutral APFT standards. </p>
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
SFC Lathrop -
You bring up an interesting question. I agree with you that regardless or MOS PT tests should be them same. Here is why, a Soldier never knows what situation they may find themselves in. Even if they are not a Combat MOS they may find themselves in a combat situation regardless of their every day job. Secondly I support the idea that if you are in a USASOC unit even if it's in a support roll you should be able to meet USASOC standards as far as PT/Ruck/etc..This is really the only time I would see PT expectations being different from being in a standard Army unit.
(4)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
You get the graphics (as I have no artistic ability) and I'll do grammar.
Get 'er done.
(1)
(0)
MSG Bo Lathrop
SSG Woods, I believe I should have elaborated a bit more on my response. I see both sides of the argument; however, I think that a Soldier is a Soldier regardless of MOS, PT score, BRM, etc. I just think that breaking down the PT test to accomodate different MOS's is a waste of time and resources.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
USASFC support soldiers do take a different PT test and are held to a higher standard as NCOs, 90 in each event! There is no punitive action for scoring less, but trust and believe you dont want to do the extra PT and you will be sent packing if you continue to be a burden!
Push ups, Sit ups, two mile run, dips, pull ups and rope climb = SF APFT.
Honestly this may just be the SFG(A) Im in, but ive heard its the same across the board.
My DET also takes the RPFT and conducts Ranger STX once a month since we are all "V" coded.
Ranger Physical Fitness Test (RPFT)
2 mile run
Push-ups
Sit-ups
Chin-ups
5 mile individual run in less than 40 min
Combat Water Survival Test
Combination Night/Day land navigation test
A 3-mile terrain run in full kit in less than 30 min
A 12-mile forced, tactical ruck march with full equipment and 60lb,before water and ACH, ruck.
My point really is, there is no need for different APFTs if the NCOs have the leaderships backing to ensure that their soldiers are fit to fight. Maybe its a little easier being in the SOF community in a DET that is E5 and above only, but leadership throughout the Army should take note of the SOF mentality when it comes to PT!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The thing that needs to change is the Army's definition of fitness. 90 pushups, 90 situps, and a 13:00 run is pretty fit. But can that same person deadlift 2x their body weight? Can he/she carry their battlebuddy out of harm's way? Can that person do a pullup? Can that person low-crawl across a football field?
See what I mean? The APFT is a poor gauge of physical fitness and soldier readiness.
You want to see how fit someone is? Pit him/her against the unknown. Have a large list of events to choose from and pull three at random. And tell 'em to do all the events back-to-back. Then see how they perform. Make it more like the CrossFit games, where the competitors are measured on their OVERALL fitness.
Also, make PT more like training to standard, and less like filling up an hour and a half because "the Army said so."
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I had the chance to help test physical demands for Comabat Engineers while I was on the trail. I think that the MOS Specific PT Test is more of a way to ensure that the Soldiers that are actually serving in those MOS's (not possibly) are physically able to perform the tasks that their specific MOS demands. The only real change that I would like to see is a gender neutral PT Test.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I completely agree with you on testing the Trainee's at basic whether or not they can handle the job they are about to perform but as far as a PT test no.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This all boils down to personal accountability, motivation and doing a self-assessment. I am a Air Defender and even though I spend the majority of my time sitting on my rear during an operational environment I other branches in the Army to be held to a higher standard than I am. But I understand the Army has preset Physical Fitness Standards that I must maintain nor do I feel that I should be exempt from maintaining them. If the the Army does decide to administer a MOS based PT test I will not object. Until then I will continue to comply to the Army's APFT requirements.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The APFT, no matter how antiquated and worthless it may be, should be the same across the board. Someone else on here said it right, it's a measure of fitness not combat readiness. I wish it was updated, harder, covered more areas, and was gender neutral, but the same for all MOSs. Now when you start talking about MOS specific stuff...there is still no way to know if that SSG mechanic knows how to run a shop without a full 90 day broad spectrum microscope up his/her 4th point of contact. Neither is there anything out there (doctrine) that tells me I can trust that SFC scout platoon leader that the area is secure before I go recover his stuck HMMWV. It is still a rely on rank and hope they didn't skate by their whole career type of army when counting on others to know their job.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm not for or against an MOS specific PT test.
With that said, I had never thought of it this way but CPT Wolfer's point about the ASVAB makes perfect sense to me.
So why do we have different minimum GT score requirements for jobs but not different minimum physical requirements for jobs?
I'm open to changing my mind however I need to hear something legit.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
There aer some good points here and in CPT Wolfer's responses. I am a 12Y, Geospatial Engineer. While 95% of my job is done on a computer system, those systems are ruggedized and in some cases 3 person lifts. I have had several different mixes of males and females on my 4 man terrain teams and I have alays been the biggest. we require the 110 minimum GT score but we definitely need to be able to move a 175Lb plotter printing system, 220lb high resolution scanner, about 100lb of communications connections (fiber optic spools, antennas, 50Lb battery backups) not to mention our 30# rolls of paper. we also have to be very proficient in Generators and our HMMWV mounted system shelters (vehicle and electric power hookups). with all of this you need to be able to handle several critical talks every day, plus you need to be able to look at the long term picture of scheduled vehicle and generator maintenance (an we the operators are responsible for most of that maintenance) and the proper scheduling and ordering of supplies to keep the mission going. and its not just the NCO's of the team that have to know this. All members are equally responsible. So the Mental Agility required for the job is quite demanding. it is also physically. that being said, the main PT test for the Army standards should be the baseline. for specific MOS's not so much. Better course is to leave it up to the unit for the extra standards. If I have a terrain team with the vehicle mounted systems, they will learn every inch and part, along with training in tearing down and setting up the quipment outside of PT hours to a set time and standard
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
We have different GT score requirements because some jobs are a little less technical than others.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Martines,
Because your job, like mine, is basically a desk job, fitness is a challenge. When we go to the field, we have to move a lot of heavy gear, but we are not getting a workout from our day-to-day. But there is nothing in the APFT to test whether or not a Soldier could really hold his/her own in a three person lift. I had little guys who were just a nose over the minimum weight to be in the Army who could knock out 80 push-ups, no sweat.
SSG Spratlin,
That is EXACTLY my point. If you can agree that we need to have different GT score requirements because "some jobs are a little less technical than others" why can't people see that some jobs require a higher level of fitness than others?
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Wolfer,
I love the point you made. I think there should be a minimum standard of fitness in order to pass BCT. But then there should different PT tests beyond that in order to become (and stay) MOS qualified.
Like the point you made about the light=weight being able to do 80 push ups no sweat, I don't necessarily think the APFT is a fair assessment of of person's physical fitness level.
The Army is supposed to look at these five aspects of a person's physical fitness level: cardiovascular fitness, endurance, strength, flexibility, and body composition. However, the current test only measures endurance (some would argue for cardio, but running 2 miles is high intensity enough for cardio).
The WHOLE system needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, it costs money. But it would be worth it.
To put a point to your comment about the ASBAV, I have recently seen a trend in my unit of people going to more and more classes in order to increase their scores. This isn't so they can get a better job, but for future opportunities at higher ranks. That being said, should the rank structure be based off of physical scoring? I mean, I've seen some fat SGMs in my day, so should we demand MORE of them because they are at a higher rank? Or do we demand less of them because they are (usually) older?
Should CPTs be able to ruck with more weight than 1SGs?
My point (just so it's clear that I am not disagreeing with you) is that variables exist everywhere in the Army. Whether you are 100 lbs or 45 years old or a woman or have a profile or sit at a desk all day. I say, rather than an MOS specific APFT, we have a brigade or squadron-level APFT. Have it include what the unit's mission dictates it should include.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google