Posted on Aug 6, 2021
Why is it that ACFT scores differ by MOS if we are all Soldiers?
10.7K
115
63
6
6
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: 21
12
12
0
My understanding was they got rid of MOS specific standards in the last iteration.
(12)
(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)
6
6
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.
(6)
(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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google