Posted on Aug 6, 2021
Why is it that ACFT scores differ by MOS if we are all Soldiers?
16.8K
99
56
5
5
0
I am sure this has been asked over the years but I just can't find it.
This morning I watched the sunrise as we began the continuing assessment of progress towards ACFT. While waiting for the deadlift I started to wonder... why did we think it was ok to assign scores by MOS. I am currently serving as an MEOA at the hospital but previously a nurse. At no point did I assume that because of my MOS I could function more or less in overall combat operations.
What is the rationale behind saying Infantry, Medics, and others you all need to be in top physical shape but in other MOS... you all are good, just be mediocre. An admin, supply, nursing, or similar "combat service support" MOS can be just as likely to end up on the battlefield or combat scenario as is a "combat arms" individual. I am witness to this in previous operations. As a previous combat medic, I was on the line and saw them having to do the same things that I was expected to do.
To me, this is a slap in the face and directly insinuates that those MOS are not Soldiers (one who fights in an army) at all. If we are saying that why not just continue to do what we have been doing over the years and hire DA Civilians or non-combatants to do those jobs.
If my Field Hospital came under attack (which can be the case in the next combat scenario which is expected to be against a neer-peer or peer), wouldn't I also need to be able to do things for the emergency evacuation of my patients, movement of medical equipment, etc? If I was in a Forward Surgical Team, and parallel with the main combat forces would I not need to be ready. If I was sitting in an office but then a mortar round or RPG went through the window would I not have to pull people out or take up arms if being overrun. To me, it doesn't make sense.
When SECDEF Mattis' started the big push for a more "lethal" force the ACFT was developed. The Army attempted to take a harder stance on obesity and fitness. A harder stance to me means take it seriously and not say let do it for some and half for others.
If someone can explain how it is ok for us to essentially say well... you are kinda like a Soldier but not really, please let me know. And if we are talking about the likelihood of never having to be in direct combat I gave examples of why stuff can instantly change and has. I have seen cooks, admin, supply, nurses, doctors, etc on a gun and/or patrol. So please explain this math to me. How can you create a more lethal force but a significant portion of that force be "somewhat" ready for the rigors of combat?
This morning I watched the sunrise as we began the continuing assessment of progress towards ACFT. While waiting for the deadlift I started to wonder... why did we think it was ok to assign scores by MOS. I am currently serving as an MEOA at the hospital but previously a nurse. At no point did I assume that because of my MOS I could function more or less in overall combat operations.
What is the rationale behind saying Infantry, Medics, and others you all need to be in top physical shape but in other MOS... you all are good, just be mediocre. An admin, supply, nursing, or similar "combat service support" MOS can be just as likely to end up on the battlefield or combat scenario as is a "combat arms" individual. I am witness to this in previous operations. As a previous combat medic, I was on the line and saw them having to do the same things that I was expected to do.
To me, this is a slap in the face and directly insinuates that those MOS are not Soldiers (one who fights in an army) at all. If we are saying that why not just continue to do what we have been doing over the years and hire DA Civilians or non-combatants to do those jobs.
If my Field Hospital came under attack (which can be the case in the next combat scenario which is expected to be against a neer-peer or peer), wouldn't I also need to be able to do things for the emergency evacuation of my patients, movement of medical equipment, etc? If I was in a Forward Surgical Team, and parallel with the main combat forces would I not need to be ready. If I was sitting in an office but then a mortar round or RPG went through the window would I not have to pull people out or take up arms if being overrun. To me, it doesn't make sense.
When SECDEF Mattis' started the big push for a more "lethal" force the ACFT was developed. The Army attempted to take a harder stance on obesity and fitness. A harder stance to me means take it seriously and not say let do it for some and half for others.
If someone can explain how it is ok for us to essentially say well... you are kinda like a Soldier but not really, please let me know. And if we are talking about the likelihood of never having to be in direct combat I gave examples of why stuff can instantly change and has. I have seen cooks, admin, supply, nurses, doctors, etc on a gun and/or patrol. So please explain this math to me. How can you create a more lethal force but a significant portion of that force be "somewhat" ready for the rigors of combat?
ACFT
Leadership
Physical Training
Combat
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
11
11
0
My understanding was they got rid of MOS specific standards in the last iteration.
(11)
(0)
8
8
0
ACFT 3.0 took away the requirements by MOS. Every soldier has to get at least 60 in each event.
(8)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes, it is true that any MOS CAN end up in direct contact. However, some MOSs EXPECT to end up in direct contact.
Additionally, while you may be called upon to do MEDEVAC, or carry a casualty, or even repel invaders inside the wire, you are never going to be doing days-long foot patrols through uneven terrain and creating your own trail to do so. You are never going to be humping a rucksack for 15 miles. You are never going to be walking through the streets for 12-16 hours in 120 degree heat.
Quite simply put, your MOS has a lower physical demand, at every phase of the operation. Even if the shit hits the fan, you will be engaged in immediate defense and/or CASEVAC. You will not do immediate defense and THEN go on a counter-attack.
And *that*, my friend, is why we expect the infantry to have a higher level of fitness. Not becuase of what they *might* do once or twice if things go badly, but because of what they *expect* to do day in and day out.
That doesn't make you *less* of a Soldier. It makes them more of one.
Speaking as a former Infantryman who went MI.
Additionally, while you may be called upon to do MEDEVAC, or carry a casualty, or even repel invaders inside the wire, you are never going to be doing days-long foot patrols through uneven terrain and creating your own trail to do so. You are never going to be humping a rucksack for 15 miles. You are never going to be walking through the streets for 12-16 hours in 120 degree heat.
Quite simply put, your MOS has a lower physical demand, at every phase of the operation. Even if the shit hits the fan, you will be engaged in immediate defense and/or CASEVAC. You will not do immediate defense and THEN go on a counter-attack.
And *that*, my friend, is why we expect the infantry to have a higher level of fitness. Not becuase of what they *might* do once or twice if things go badly, but because of what they *expect* to do day in and day out.
That doesn't make you *less* of a Soldier. It makes them more of one.
Speaking as a former Infantryman who went MI.
(5)
(0)
SP5 Michael Barczykowski
I disagree with the Sgt. I was the only medic for a mobile 105 firebase, Viet Nam. As such, I was on every patrol and perimeter clearing patrol that went out. That included advanced clearing before bringing the 105's into a new operating theater. Some days I could go out anywhere from one to three patrols a day. Besides carrying the same ruck sack as the others, I also had my aid pack, 35 to 50 lbs. I also carried my M16 with an over/under M80 grenade launcher, my choice on the later.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SP5 Michael Barczykowski And combat medic is an MOS with a higher physical standard.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Barczykowski
SFC Casey O'Mally - When stateside I was with the 82nd Airborne, Fort Bragg. Our unit had no classifications based on MOS when it came to PT. Everybody fell out and did the same routines from E-1 to Command Sgt. Mj.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SP5 Michael Barczykowski - Yes. And there was no ACFT, either.
And I guarantee that the PT that was done in the Infantry Battalions was more rigorous (on average) then the PT done in the hospital units or the maintenance support battalions (on avergae) - and probably a lot better attended, too (less "excused absences" for "mission requirements"). Sure the medics and supply folks in those infantry units were expected to PT with the infantry - and keep up! But let's not pretend that the softer MOSs were held to the same expectation Division-wide. And certainly not service-wide.
Just to make sure we are using the same language, the PT standard was 60/60/60/180, because that is the Army standard. No Soldier can be PUNISHED for getting 60/60/60/180. You can't be given an "unsat" rating, UCMJ, mandatory PT after hours, etc. But the PT GOALS - those were always above that. Failure to meet the PT Goal would result in developmental counseling, extra PT during the duty day, "strongly encourage" extra PT after hours / on the weekends, individual "coaching and mentorship" from a supervisor, etc. Anyone failing to meet the goals WOULD be "strenuously developed" until they did meet the goal.
During my time in the Infantry (3 Companies of 1 Battalion), The BN PT Goal was 250 for individuals, 230 for unit average. Two Companies (both of the line companies) had PT Goals of 270 individual, 250 average. The HHC Goal was 270 / 240. When I crossed over to MI, not a SINGLE MI unit I was in had an individual PT goal higher than 250. Not one. One even had a PT goal of 210 individual, and provided no development for people who passed but did not meet the goal. Yes, there were still high performers - we had 300 PT studs. But MI cared far more about how well you could intel than they did about how well you could PT - and they SHOULD.
And I guarantee that the PT that was done in the Infantry Battalions was more rigorous (on average) then the PT done in the hospital units or the maintenance support battalions (on avergae) - and probably a lot better attended, too (less "excused absences" for "mission requirements"). Sure the medics and supply folks in those infantry units were expected to PT with the infantry - and keep up! But let's not pretend that the softer MOSs were held to the same expectation Division-wide. And certainly not service-wide.
Just to make sure we are using the same language, the PT standard was 60/60/60/180, because that is the Army standard. No Soldier can be PUNISHED for getting 60/60/60/180. You can't be given an "unsat" rating, UCMJ, mandatory PT after hours, etc. But the PT GOALS - those were always above that. Failure to meet the PT Goal would result in developmental counseling, extra PT during the duty day, "strongly encourage" extra PT after hours / on the weekends, individual "coaching and mentorship" from a supervisor, etc. Anyone failing to meet the goals WOULD be "strenuously developed" until they did meet the goal.
During my time in the Infantry (3 Companies of 1 Battalion), The BN PT Goal was 250 for individuals, 230 for unit average. Two Companies (both of the line companies) had PT Goals of 270 individual, 250 average. The HHC Goal was 270 / 240. When I crossed over to MI, not a SINGLE MI unit I was in had an individual PT goal higher than 250. Not one. One even had a PT goal of 210 individual, and provided no development for people who passed but did not meet the goal. Yes, there were still high performers - we had 300 PT studs. But MI cared far more about how well you could intel than they did about how well you could PT - and they SHOULD.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
68W yes you will more likely be in combat situations and have to drag a wounded soldier or litter carry than say a supply guy might of a medical doctor might. You also forgot a lot of army support folks do not go down range. Yes any of us could be in a firefight if the role 2 or 3 was attacked. That’s why we all are weapons qualified and know the basics at least.
Your same thinking could be flipped and say that shouldn’t the surgeons know how to kick in doors and conduct combat patrols? No. The army has different skill sets for a reason. One force one mission, but we all have an integral part and it’s not the same.
As for a basic standard they have that and it was supposed to be age and gender neutral and based on the physical demands of your MOS or AOC. That’s why certain events are not removed even if on profile. You need to be able to deadlift 130 lbs at minimum which could be lifting debris off another soldier, helping lift a litter or help lift a soldier. Sprint drag carry. He able to sprint a short distance pick up a wounded soldier by his kit and drag him to safety, pick up 40 lbs of ammo in each hand and run with it. All tasks all soldiers must now do in the ACFT at a minimum. You are worried about why there are different standards, but I see plenty of people not able to meet the minimum standard right now and it’s not like the APFT where you can be out of shape and train for a month and slide by. It’s a harder test.
Hey I think it’s great if that field surgeon can deadlift 300 lbs and do 30 leg tucks, but all I care about is can that surgeon do the normal required tasks in a pinch of a soldier and more importantly can that surgeon be a great surgeon on the battlefield in combat stress situations.
Your same thinking could be flipped and say that shouldn’t the surgeons know how to kick in doors and conduct combat patrols? No. The army has different skill sets for a reason. One force one mission, but we all have an integral part and it’s not the same.
As for a basic standard they have that and it was supposed to be age and gender neutral and based on the physical demands of your MOS or AOC. That’s why certain events are not removed even if on profile. You need to be able to deadlift 130 lbs at minimum which could be lifting debris off another soldier, helping lift a litter or help lift a soldier. Sprint drag carry. He able to sprint a short distance pick up a wounded soldier by his kit and drag him to safety, pick up 40 lbs of ammo in each hand and run with it. All tasks all soldiers must now do in the ACFT at a minimum. You are worried about why there are different standards, but I see plenty of people not able to meet the minimum standard right now and it’s not like the APFT where you can be out of shape and train for a month and slide by. It’s a harder test.
Hey I think it’s great if that field surgeon can deadlift 300 lbs and do 30 leg tucks, but all I care about is can that surgeon do the normal required tasks in a pinch of a soldier and more importantly can that surgeon be a great surgeon on the battlefield in combat stress situations.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for sharing. I feel the same way about a surgeon but I am also not asking him/her to be a 11B, 13B or 68W but being in similar physicality. And from what i have seen many of our surgeons are in better shape than a lot of others. The vast majority of us go through Basic/OCS. Just asking for a standard for all and its up to you to go from there. But realize that what you lack may cause someone something.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The same could be said for the gym rats that barely pass at the range. That’s why it’s called a standard. SFC (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
I mean no disrespect but wasn’t the ACFT implemented specifically to set standards by MOS? IOW, it didn’t make sense, or realistic, for a 42A to have the same physical standards as an 11B. I’ve been out for awhile so correct me if I’m wrong but that was my understanding.
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see)
I do enjoy a good cup of coffee.
That being said I can agree with that.
My personal opinion is that all enlisted Soldiers should be required to either do a school of infantry or be some combat MOS and test out to reclass so that they understand basic Soldier skills prior to just jumping into a field and not knowing the basics.
I do enjoy a good cup of coffee.
That being said I can agree with that.
My personal opinion is that all enlisted Soldiers should be required to either do a school of infantry or be some combat MOS and test out to reclass so that they understand basic Soldier skills prior to just jumping into a field and not knowing the basics.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree. The Army is a fighting force, like it or not. Every Soldier a rifleman. Why not? The Matines have been doing it for some time now. SGT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
SFC (Join to see) - Great points. Maybe it should be unit specific. I was a 74D for a number of years but I can see why if I were assigned to an Infantry unit, that I should be able to meet their standards.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
By that same logic, you should be required to know how to perform surgery -- and so should each infantryman, cook, and clerk. After all, you're all "Soldiers" so you should all be fully qualified to do every job in the Army. And, of course, everyone should be required to have a 111111 profile too.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for sharing. In a perfect world yes everyone would have a 111111. And there was a total soldier concept many years ago but we got away from it. But I am also speaking from experience from both sides and saying how I view it. Why not have that AFCT be the average baseline and test of record for everyone but have another test at home units be another.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
SFC (Join to see) - Every few years someone come up with a "better way" -- about each decade, the Army leadership decides to try someone's "better way" -- when that happens, units are selected to run some sort of tests, but the outcome of those tests are almost always known in advance because the results always match the thoughts expressed by the senior leadership at the start of the test.
There are absolutely logical reasons why every Soldier ought to be some perfect specimen or at least everyone should meet some high standard just in case they ever need to climb up the side of a building or jump across a canyon or whatever -- there are also absolutely logical reasons why all standards ought to be MOS-specific -- both approaches have been tried several times, and each time either approach has been applied, it has failed miserably. But it almost always takes waiting for the next New Leadership before the Army can acknowledge that any of its social experiments needs to be thrown out.
Regardless of which philosophy is being used at any given time, the service always ends up making exceptions (officially, unofficially, or usually both).
The reality is that even in the Army there are certain specialties where a soldier could spend his entire career working seated in an air-conditioned climate-controlled facility and the farthest he would ever need to run would be to grab a quick cup of coffee. Those soldiers are just as essential as any of the combat arms -- and a hell of a lot harder to recruit and retain. If you want to receive your equipment, your supplies, your food, and your pay, you might want to avoid forcing out all those people you consider unfit.
There are absolutely logical reasons why every Soldier ought to be some perfect specimen or at least everyone should meet some high standard just in case they ever need to climb up the side of a building or jump across a canyon or whatever -- there are also absolutely logical reasons why all standards ought to be MOS-specific -- both approaches have been tried several times, and each time either approach has been applied, it has failed miserably. But it almost always takes waiting for the next New Leadership before the Army can acknowledge that any of its social experiments needs to be thrown out.
Regardless of which philosophy is being used at any given time, the service always ends up making exceptions (officially, unofficially, or usually both).
The reality is that even in the Army there are certain specialties where a soldier could spend his entire career working seated in an air-conditioned climate-controlled facility and the farthest he would ever need to run would be to grab a quick cup of coffee. Those soldiers are just as essential as any of the combat arms -- and a hell of a lot harder to recruit and retain. If you want to receive your equipment, your supplies, your food, and your pay, you might want to avoid forcing out all those people you consider unfit.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I always wondered what battles we would engage in wearing tennis shoes, shorts and t-shirts. Always seemed to me that PT should be done in a more realistic manner. Instead of running on a hard surface /track would not a cross country run be better in uniform.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You are correct. The combat test had us wearing gear a few years ago. Not sure where that is now.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think they did away with MOS specific scores, but they do make sense.
Even if your forward hospital got attacked, your day to day job wouldnt require you to be as strong as an Infantryman. An Army Doc or HR specialist isnt out every day patrolling, nor would they be expected to ruck 15 miles with 75lbs or more of gear THEN launch an attack. Yeah it would be nice if every Soldier was at that level but its not a realistic expectation.
The day to day life of Combat Arms is essentially working out every day (not just PT but rucking, battle drills/physical labor of training) and training on weapons. Other jobs have a non-physical task to complete, so they just dont have the time.
Even if your forward hospital got attacked, your day to day job wouldnt require you to be as strong as an Infantryman. An Army Doc or HR specialist isnt out every day patrolling, nor would they be expected to ruck 15 miles with 75lbs or more of gear THEN launch an attack. Yeah it would be nice if every Soldier was at that level but its not a realistic expectation.
The day to day life of Combat Arms is essentially working out every day (not just PT but rucking, battle drills/physical labor of training) and training on weapons. Other jobs have a non-physical task to complete, so they just dont have the time.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
My combat arms experience may have been different. Sure we ran a lot (except for the two seconds on Tuesday that we did push up and sit up improvement) and rucked a lot but we weren't just working out all the time like athletes. We were in the motor pools, pulling guard, going to the field, taking leave/pass/tdy, going to NTC, then to combat. So its not like a standard for everyone that's the same can't be done.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) Take my comment with a grain of salt, my Infantry days were with the guard. I was a pog on active. Currently in the Reserves (I got all 3 parts to the Army).
Also I think the ACFT is kinda dumb. It would be a better workout routine than a metric of physical ability. The laterals in the SDC are simply not a movement I will do in combat and tossing a heavy-ish object over my head is idiotic. Not to mention just about every sports doctor says deadlifts are absolutely awful for your back, I dont know if that changes with the type of bar we are using. The leg tuck is poorly thought out as its also testing my ability to do a half pull up and curl into a ball on the bar while fighting my natural body mechanics to keep myself facing the supports. The new push-ups are okay I guess. But we do a pretty intense leg work out, do the ticks then run? lol what? The whole thing seems like the Army wanted to miss the mark on a good test.
In my opinion the run should come first, by the logic of your either running TO the fight or you are being ambushed while on patrol. Then roll into a dummy drag to simulate a casualty, followed pull-ups to simulate climbing a vehicle to get on a gun, sit-ups with no stops to simulate ground fighting, then push-ups with no stops to simulate hand to hand fighting while tired. All of this, while wearing your armor and helmet, because that is what you wear in combat. So times and reps will have to be adjusted, so like 15min run time, no time limit for the drag (25m), 1 pull-up, 5 sit-ups (will be real hard in plates), and 20 push ups. The secondary effect to this, is it would force guys to wear their armor properly. I know this odea sounds kinda easy, but its after the run that makes it hard. Plus I think it would be hard to argue against having one standard for males, females and the new category, as these are all things you would absolutely need to do in combat.
Also I think the ACFT is kinda dumb. It would be a better workout routine than a metric of physical ability. The laterals in the SDC are simply not a movement I will do in combat and tossing a heavy-ish object over my head is idiotic. Not to mention just about every sports doctor says deadlifts are absolutely awful for your back, I dont know if that changes with the type of bar we are using. The leg tuck is poorly thought out as its also testing my ability to do a half pull up and curl into a ball on the bar while fighting my natural body mechanics to keep myself facing the supports. The new push-ups are okay I guess. But we do a pretty intense leg work out, do the ticks then run? lol what? The whole thing seems like the Army wanted to miss the mark on a good test.
In my opinion the run should come first, by the logic of your either running TO the fight or you are being ambushed while on patrol. Then roll into a dummy drag to simulate a casualty, followed pull-ups to simulate climbing a vehicle to get on a gun, sit-ups with no stops to simulate ground fighting, then push-ups with no stops to simulate hand to hand fighting while tired. All of this, while wearing your armor and helmet, because that is what you wear in combat. So times and reps will have to be adjusted, so like 15min run time, no time limit for the drag (25m), 1 pull-up, 5 sit-ups (will be real hard in plates), and 20 push ups. The secondary effect to this, is it would force guys to wear their armor properly. I know this odea sounds kinda easy, but its after the run that makes it hard. Plus I think it would be hard to argue against having one standard for males, females and the new category, as these are all things you would absolutely need to do in combat.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I often wonder about the PT test. When I first went in we did horizontal ladder, run dodge jump, etc. then it went to push ups, sit ups and mile run. At first over 40 could walk. One thing that stuck out was Units in combat arms had time for physical training built into their day. I spent most of my Army career at med centers. I arrived at work between 6 AM to 6:30 AM to set up and prepare for cases. Then we got done usually around 4 pm. Often all we got was a 15 min morning break , 1/2 hour for lunch, and 15 min afternoon break. So I then went to do PT.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Big Army only sees infantry, armor, and artillery and in peacetime, those areas have all the time in the world to get good at army things. It would be nice if someday big Army would realize in garrison legal still goes to court, MPs still patrol the streets, medical still has the sick and injured and so many others just as busy in garrison as down range. BAMC sees just as much trauma and illness as any CSH downrange.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Different standards during to weight lifting requirements whether you work on a line in a Combat MOS, versus Combat Support, versus Combat Service Support.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google