Posted on Feb 12, 2014
MSG Bo Lathrop
21.6K
111
86
4
4
0
I personally don't agree with it. As an Infantryman, I think all PT tests should be the same. What do you think?<br>
Posted in these groups: P542 APFTExpertsights e1324327272686 MOS
Avatar feed
Responses: 28
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
GySgt (Other / Not listed)
10
10
0
For the Corps, standards are all the same under the reason that every Marine is a rifleman. &nbsp;
(10)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT All Source Intelligence
6
6
0
Then would you agree for one standard for the ASVAB?  
(6)
Comment
(0)
1SG Visual Information Operations Chief
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
Hahahahahahaha That's what I'm talking about!
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG Visual Information Operations Chief
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
SFC Gates,

You sound like an Old Man LOL....
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
>1 y
*Googling Kodachrome*
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC 13 F Master Gunner
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Brigade S4 Logistics Ncoic
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG Joseph Phillips
SSG Joseph Phillips
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
Should the Army support MOS specific PT tests?
CPT(P) Battalion Operations (S3)
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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Recruiter
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
>1 y
You get the graphics (as I have no artistic ability) and I'll do grammar. 
Get 'er done.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Bo Lathrop
MSG Bo Lathrop
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
>1 y
SFC Lathrop
Oh ok, I understand now. Thank you for the clarification. 
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Cda 564, Assistant Team Sergeant
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Team Leader
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Combat Engineer
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)
Comment
(0)
SFC Infantryman
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Training Room Ncoic
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Stephen Pate
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG V. Michelle Woods
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG Instructor
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SSG Conex
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
We have different GT score requirements because some jobs are a little less technical than others. 
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT All Source Intelligence
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SGT Team Leader
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Visual Information Operations Chief
1
1
0
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
SSG V. Michelle Woods
>1 y
Uhhhh yeah me too lol. 
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Detachment Commander
1
1
0
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)
SFC Intelligence Analyst
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 All Source Intelligence
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 Team Leader
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 Intelligence Analyst
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)
Avatar small
SPC Dan Goforth
2
1
1
Edited >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
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
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
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)
Avatar small
SFC Ait Platoon Sergeant
0
0
0
same across the board....no difference between Soldiers
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PVT John Williams
0
0
0
Oh hell no. They should be the same.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Christopher Parrish
0
0
0
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)
Avatar small
Sgt Adam Jennings
0
0
0
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)
Avatar small
SFC Training Nco
0
0
0
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)
Avatar small
SFC Training Nco
0
0
0
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)
Avatar small
SSG(P) Casualty Operations Ncoic
0
0
0

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)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

How are you connected to the military?
  • Active Duty
  • Active Reserve / National Guard
  • Pre-Commission
  • Veteran / Retired
  • Civilian Supporter