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
3
3
0
Here is the reality of it. This is not PC and really, it does not need to be. This is more political test tube bullshit. In essence people were bitching and moaning about the APFT because it was two standards... male and female and was subdivided into age brackets for minimums. That meant that an 11B that was 19 years old was had the same scoring mechanism as an 19 YO 88M or any other MOS that had a male that was 19 YO. Too many bitched about the fact that they were not combat arms why should they need to? Additionally the APFT needed an overhaul because well as it was it was unrealistic of what we train for which is war time. It was 3 events and only one of which was actually used in combat. It did not measure whether a troop could pull another across a battlefield, or lift another up that was wounded or even lift munitions and equipment as they might do in reality.
It's rather stupid that a physical fitness evaluation is being tailored to an MOS or group of MOS. No other branch has that, nor should they. It's beyond stupid. Every MOS has that potential for being in combat. The test should be neutral across the board.
In reality I see the current ACFT as a clusterfuck that if implemented as is... will see a lot of fatbodies and people unable to perform should they reclass or get reclassed.
It's rather stupid that a physical fitness evaluation is being tailored to an MOS or group of MOS. No other branch has that, nor should they. It's beyond stupid. Every MOS has that potential for being in combat. The test should be neutral across the board.
In reality I see the current ACFT as a clusterfuck that if implemented as is... will see a lot of fatbodies and people unable to perform should they reclass or get reclassed.
(3)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
It certainly makes as much sense at the age and sex determined scale of the APFT. I support the original concept, the Army is a big organization and most of it does not require a triathlon competitor to do it. Some of it does.
Being just a bit more than a little cynical, what is going on now is what happened to the first iteration of this kind of test that was tried briefly by in the 80's. The test failed too many females, especially in the newer MOS's opened to them. Instead of looking at why they failed or if it were possible to train them to pass the standard, they just did away with it that time and keep making it easier this time.
Being just a bit more than a little cynical, what is going on now is what happened to the first iteration of this kind of test that was tried briefly by in the 80's. The test failed too many females, especially in the newer MOS's opened to them. Instead of looking at why they failed or if it were possible to train them to pass the standard, they just did away with it that time and keep making it easier this time.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I understand your comments and appreciate them but I have a few questions. Ancef or vancomycin for a routine ankle fx? Does your facility do zosyn over 30mins or over four hours? Finally, how many RNs do you know that could kick your ass? In a perfect world, we all have soldier skills at a set level and can do the grunt shit at the same level however we have different jobs and expectations. As a 68C you need to know those abx questions and be able to hit an enemy with your assigned weapon the length of a patient ward but do you really need to hit someone at 200m? The last question I asked about an RN kicking your ass, as boys that is something a lot of us talk about growing up. I was punished for two fights in school as a kid growing up, wrestled for three years, and coaching wrestling now. That is in my mentality but so many nurses and doctors it is not and you cannot train that fight into people. My last trip to the range I hit 33/40 with iron sights on a borrowed weapon; give me the same tools as the infantry I will out shoot many of them because shooting is important to me. Many healthcare providers it is not. I realize this question refers to the ACFT but I wrote to show how in such a big Army we have our own important areas we need to be the top at and having lower PT standards for nurses is not allowing for mediocre soldiers but rather gives room to expect the best healthcare team in the world is there when you get blown up. Oh and least I forget, 225 is still easy for this old man to deadlift. I might even be able to still bench press it as well.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm not understanding why we are complaining about the different standards for the ACFT as if the APFT didn't have didn't standards as well. As we can recall, the APFT depending on gender and age. In theory, an 18 year old 11B and a 35 year old 11B would have different standards on the PT test. Did anyone complain about that? I'm sure they both still accomplished the mission even though the PT standards were different. It didn't make the older soldier any less lethal just because he got more time on his run.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for your insight. I am also talking about my experience as well having been on both sides. And I did say things about the old APFT. Concerns brought up from us another reason why the ACFT is trying to figure out. There is a correlation between lethality on the battlefield and physical fitness. But there we lie also people that were 35 but would destroy an 18 year old.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Apparently the Army is now on ACFT version 5.5, and it's still not approved. We have no idea what standards the ACFT will have once it's finally approved.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff the one the Army is using is 3.0 the one TRADOC is working on is 5.5
It will be version 6.0 at least before the rest of the Army moves to it. The ACFT score is like the scoring from Who's Line is it Anyway - the rules are made up and the points don't matter
It will be version 6.0 at least before the rest of the Army moves to it. The ACFT score is like the scoring from Who's Line is it Anyway - the rules are made up and the points don't matter
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Your thinking is so 1980 when the MOS immaterial advanced PT test was implemented. Prior to that support MOSs took the staff and specialist PT test. It was the same 5 event PT that everyone else took except we could get our 300 points any was we could whereas the combat arms had to score 300 with art least 60 per event. The reasoning to make everything take the sane test because everyone could end up on the battlefield.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I don’t know. Because they realized they were Laing too many in the support elements and it was simpler to change/lower the standards for certain groups so they could keep them? They’ve lost sight of “One Army”? They’ve already invested so much time and effort into a program that was crap right out of the gate, no one wants to admit they were wrong so they’re going to make it work, come hell or high water?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Guess I missed this change (must have occurred after I retired). It used to be the only differential was age, sex, or medical profile.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This may not be what people want to hear. But i think those at the top that come up with all the M.O.S. change's and thing's like this just are trying to come up with stuff that makes them look like they are doing something up in D.C.
Now it can not hurt to cross train people in reacting to real combat situations before deployment.
I am not talking about training for a month before they go.
But like it was back in the 70's and 80's train like you fight, And do it over and over along with bringing in the cross training at the same time.
I don't know my be I am just set in the old way's that have not been thought for real in a very long time.
Now it can not hurt to cross train people in reacting to real combat situations before deployment.
I am not talking about training for a month before they go.
But like it was back in the 70's and 80's train like you fight, And do it over and over along with bringing in the cross training at the same time.
I don't know my be I am just set in the old way's that have not been thought for real in a very long time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
2LT Brian L.
Well... aside from the GT point it still all fits the Infantry... To ride in a Stryker you are supposed to have a clearance .. but the difference is the old lowest requirement for the ACFT is 1! 1 ahahaha you are supposed to do 5 for the climbing drill so no idea that number was even considered. Like the author of the post said it should an insult to expect less but here we are. I do realize that every other POG MOS is going to go after the whole "gt" angle, however I do not know the stats but I would be shocked if the Infantry does not at least score above the 50% mark as I do know many that score well into or above the 130's. Its low hanging fruit but for your argument and my topic its acceptable. I do like the Marine mentality that everyone is a rifleman and wish the Army had adapted that. But as Im sure you know "Soldiers" such as Radar repair or whatever's could barely if at all do most skill level 10 tasks. Its almost a phone call from congress when someone gets the expert soldiers badge at this point (I mean its still historically 10% that get EIB's) but my god what are they at .00001% lol
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
2LT Brian L. - To ride in a Stryker you are supposed to have a clearance.... a SECRET, which can be waived by the BN CDR.
For some of the stuff I did, even an everyday TS wasn't good enough, there were additional read-ons, caveats, etc. Plus polygraph for some positions.
And you also ignored the credentialing part.
Yes, there are smart infantrymen. But they don't HAVE to be smart. The smartest folks I have ever met in the Army were in the Infantry. But... the dumbest folks I ever met in the Army... were in the Infantry.
Similarly, there are strong MI (or IT, Chaplains, supply, etc.). But they don't HAVE to be. When I was in Infantryland, an APFT below 260 was disgraceful, one below 225 was special pop. When I was in MI Land, depending on the unit, most of the time, there was no special pop unless someone failed one or more events. 181 was good enough. 181 was never encouraged, and it was frowned heavily upon. But not "punished" (and I know special pop is not technically punishment). 260 in most units was considered pretty damn good, and a 240 was perfectly acceptable. MI doesn't have to be strong - but plenty of MI Soldiers got their 290s and 300s.
Your argument that there *are* smart infantrymen is irrelevant when discussing what the minimum qualification for an MOS is. Otherwise, your argument about the higher minimum physical standard for infantry is completely invalidated by Soldiers in other MOSs who meet or exceed the infantry standard (and there are plenty who will).
(And if my squad ever got as low as 10% success rate for EIB I would have taken them out to the woodline and shot them. Not really, but many would have wished I had. Is it really that low Army wide? Looked it up. EIB = 14% on average. ESB = 12-18%. So pretty comparable.)
For some of the stuff I did, even an everyday TS wasn't good enough, there were additional read-ons, caveats, etc. Plus polygraph for some positions.
And you also ignored the credentialing part.
Yes, there are smart infantrymen. But they don't HAVE to be smart. The smartest folks I have ever met in the Army were in the Infantry. But... the dumbest folks I ever met in the Army... were in the Infantry.
Similarly, there are strong MI (or IT, Chaplains, supply, etc.). But they don't HAVE to be. When I was in Infantryland, an APFT below 260 was disgraceful, one below 225 was special pop. When I was in MI Land, depending on the unit, most of the time, there was no special pop unless someone failed one or more events. 181 was good enough. 181 was never encouraged, and it was frowned heavily upon. But not "punished" (and I know special pop is not technically punishment). 260 in most units was considered pretty damn good, and a 240 was perfectly acceptable. MI doesn't have to be strong - but plenty of MI Soldiers got their 290s and 300s.
Your argument that there *are* smart infantrymen is irrelevant when discussing what the minimum qualification for an MOS is. Otherwise, your argument about the higher minimum physical standard for infantry is completely invalidated by Soldiers in other MOSs who meet or exceed the infantry standard (and there are plenty who will).
(And if my squad ever got as low as 10% success rate for EIB I would have taken them out to the woodline and shot them. Not really, but many would have wished I had. Is it really that low Army wide? Looked it up. EIB = 14% on average. ESB = 12-18%. So pretty comparable.)
(0)
(0)
2LT Brian L.
Well... your argument regarding GT is irrelevant also as we were discussing the ACFT lol... Naw ... how many that are eligible for the ESB have competed where as nearly every Infantryman will compete at some point for the EIB.. . might take some time but generally as a rule and those stats as provided are not accurate they do not reflect the pool of "Soldiers"... Im all for it if you believe that a clearance gets you a raise however if you want some MOS's to do more on an ACFT pay us more! As far as POG apft scores its always been that way... highly polarized studs and turds.. less in between.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google