Posted on Jan 8, 2015
Does every MOS/Rate need the same level of fitness? What about an MOS/Rate specific PT test or events?
84.8K
659
567
23
20
3
I really hope this happens. Not all MOS require the same level of Fitness. I wouldn't use it for an promotion packet against all MOSs as it wouldn't be the same for everyone but I would like to see additional events that address some of the specific tasks that are measures of fitness for some MOSs. For infantry I would add pull ups or even a ruck. If you were a mechanics you might have to be able to hand carry a certain weight over a short distance. I would let senior NCOs in that MOS decide what they would require. The Army should not make every MOS have a different tst. This would impossible. But an example of how this would look is that any one in combat arms or in a combat arms unit would be required to perform pulls and a ruck. If you were in a field medical or medical support unit you may have to do a body drag.
*****************************EDITED*************************************
Be advised. The standard should not be LOWERED. The base APFT with 180 should not be lowered. I think it should be higher. I think it should be especially higher for some areas, such as the combat arms. What this would look like is using the standard test for everyone but adding an additional event. So if you are a soldier that doesn't much physical labor you wouldn't be effected by this. If you were a combat engineer in the 82ND you would be required to a bit more.
*****************************EDITED*************************************
Be advised. The standard should not be LOWERED. The base APFT with 180 should not be lowered. I think it should be higher. I think it should be especially higher for some areas, such as the combat arms. What this would look like is using the standard test for everyone but adding an additional event. So if you are a soldier that doesn't much physical labor you wouldn't be effected by this. If you were a combat engineer in the 82ND you would be required to a bit more.
MOS
APFT
Fitness
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 198
Suspended Profile
As a 1SG I want to be tested on my coffee cup holding endurance. I am second to none!
show previous comments
SFC (Join to see)
1SG, I think this old Motor Sergeant may give you a solid run for your money on that one. 64oz bubba cup to start my day... every day. LOL
(3)
(0)
SP5 Tom Carlson
as an air crewmen, I could sprint 100 yards under 15 seconds with a 60 lb starter and a 16 oz. cup of coffee..
(0)
(0)
SFC Jonathan Surprise
Good one Top!
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC (Join to see) - What is the purpose of the house mouse if not to make sure the 1stSgt never has a cold cup of coffee?
(1)
(0)
I don't like this at all. This logic is a slippery slope and I don't agree with its implications for the broader force. Then why not also just lower marksmanship requirements for certain support MOS's that are least likely to need to use their weapon? For example, people who go 12 months on a deployment without ever leaving the FOB one time? Why should they have as high a threshold to meet for their MOS with their weapon, when their weapon skills almost don't matter?
I just don't like the idea of compromising standards as fundamental as physical fitness.
I just don't like the idea of compromising standards as fundamental as physical fitness.
(30)
(0)
PO1 Daniel Garcia
The standards for physical fitness do not exist to test a soldier's will to fight, but to ensure their capacity to survive and perform on a battlefield. If you're hiring cyber warriors, a physical fitness test does not verify this capacity. There are several arguments for keeping one standard:
1- "it's a standard, uphold the standard" - simplistic, narrow minded, and circular in logic
2- "prove your capacity to succeed" - there are brilliant men on wheelchairs that should be able to serve their country's military in an intellectual capacity. asthma. thyroid. congenital disease.
3- "survival in the battlefield" - doesn't necessarily apply. men and women on a ship, in an office, in a command, will never see a battlefield. and if they do, they were set up for failure.
If the army wants to keep its zeal for standards it'll suffer in the long run.
1- "it's a standard, uphold the standard" - simplistic, narrow minded, and circular in logic
2- "prove your capacity to succeed" - there are brilliant men on wheelchairs that should be able to serve their country's military in an intellectual capacity. asthma. thyroid. congenital disease.
3- "survival in the battlefield" - doesn't necessarily apply. men and women on a ship, in an office, in a command, will never see a battlefield. and if they do, they were set up for failure.
If the army wants to keep its zeal for standards it'll suffer in the long run.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Having different standards is a bad idea. Moreover, the logistics involved in running the APFT would take too much time. A unit with Soldiers with different MOSs would have to shut down for a few days to administer all of the different PT tests. Anyway, the standards are easy.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Respectfully, sir, a 'slippery slope' argument is by definition fallacious. The greater army has enough resources and experienced professionals to determine that blanket-standards are sometimes a lazy answer to a complex issue. Will the army always need fit-to-fight, highly-trained trigger-pullers? Absolutely! However, as asymmetric warfare continues to evolve, the need for special troops like linguists, specialized doctors, computer scientists, and niche-specialists continues to grow. Can we afford to turn people away who meet every current mission requirement but the ability to run fast for two miles?
Baseline fitness is an important metric in a lot of ways, but the overstated importance of the APFT also suggests that the APFT is a much better measurement of overall fitness than it really is. Any soldier who's made it through basic has seen otherwise fit soldiers narrowly fail a PT test or bust tape, then on the same day see a chain-smoking, dorito-gorging barracks troll pass with relative ease because they train to the test alone. Instead of clinging to the notion that the current standard is the military's only hope to maintain mission readiness, why not re-evaluate the standards in place and continue to fight smarter as better data becomes available?
Baseline fitness is an important metric in a lot of ways, but the overstated importance of the APFT also suggests that the APFT is a much better measurement of overall fitness than it really is. Any soldier who's made it through basic has seen otherwise fit soldiers narrowly fail a PT test or bust tape, then on the same day see a chain-smoking, dorito-gorging barracks troll pass with relative ease because they train to the test alone. Instead of clinging to the notion that the current standard is the military's only hope to maintain mission readiness, why not re-evaluate the standards in place and continue to fight smarter as better data becomes available?
(3)
(0)
SPC Matt Davidson
PO1 Daniel Garcia - it really comes down to this. if you are on a convoy and get ambushed or you are on a Blackhawk and it goes down do you really want to drag around soldiers that are struggling because they aren't up to the same physical standard for the reason that they are "cyber warriors?"
(0)
(0)
27
24
3
I love the concept of MOS + unit based PT standards and have lobbied big Army about it for years, even before I joined the military. I was in Bosnia as a civilian when they lost an Arabic crypto linguist because he couldn't pass the run (he made height/weight with no tape). Do not picture an interpreter who rides on convoys. He sits at a desk all day, but more relevant, his AIT plus language school was the better part of two years and he was going to be put out short the obligation he incurred for his schooling. I wrote as a taxpayer that I paid for this guy to have a skill set that did not include running, and now my money was being wasted. The Army didn't care and followed regs. That was 2004/5 when we needed this guy.
I have written many times here about the tired argument that at any moment anyone could end up in combat. I beg you to look at the stats. For every non-combat arms person who found themselves in combat, there were 1,000 who did not (rounding) to include many who enter and leave the military never even deploying. If you back out the number who did not belong to combat arms based units, now you are entirely grasping at straws.
I envision several levels of PT requirements:
-Special Forces
-Ranger/Special Purpose Units
-Combat Arms
-Non-Combat Arms, but assigned to Combat Arms Unit
-Non-Combat Arms
(and maybe even a sixth category for JAG, dental, psychologists, etc)
Soldiers should be able to take higher level standards and be rewarded for such (like we do with the German Armed Forces Badge). The lowest bracket should not be vastly lower than the next higher bracket because you do not want to set people up where they cannot have career mobility because they have not been held to a high enough fitness standard. I also think that at the "Combat Arms" level, events could be added to address specific needs of an MOS.
In any event, we should be focused on what our shortcomings have been over the last decade. In every analysis I have read about OEF/OIF, I have never once heard that the problem involved lack of Soldier physical fitness. I would love to see this matter put to bed so we can focus on developing the kind of professional force we will need to face the kinds of threats we are likely to see in the future (high tech, social media savvy, cyber-based enemies). More push-ups, adding pull-ups, crossfit, will NOT get us there, but will surely deter the kinds of Soldiers we need from even joining our force.
I have written many times here about the tired argument that at any moment anyone could end up in combat. I beg you to look at the stats. For every non-combat arms person who found themselves in combat, there were 1,000 who did not (rounding) to include many who enter and leave the military never even deploying. If you back out the number who did not belong to combat arms based units, now you are entirely grasping at straws.
I envision several levels of PT requirements:
-Special Forces
-Ranger/Special Purpose Units
-Combat Arms
-Non-Combat Arms, but assigned to Combat Arms Unit
-Non-Combat Arms
(and maybe even a sixth category for JAG, dental, psychologists, etc)
Soldiers should be able to take higher level standards and be rewarded for such (like we do with the German Armed Forces Badge). The lowest bracket should not be vastly lower than the next higher bracket because you do not want to set people up where they cannot have career mobility because they have not been held to a high enough fitness standard. I also think that at the "Combat Arms" level, events could be added to address specific needs of an MOS.
In any event, we should be focused on what our shortcomings have been over the last decade. In every analysis I have read about OEF/OIF, I have never once heard that the problem involved lack of Soldier physical fitness. I would love to see this matter put to bed so we can focus on developing the kind of professional force we will need to face the kinds of threats we are likely to see in the future (high tech, social media savvy, cyber-based enemies). More push-ups, adding pull-ups, crossfit, will NOT get us there, but will surely deter the kinds of Soldiers we need from even joining our force.
(27)
(3)
MAJ (Join to see)
It is a challenge for some, In our military today half of our requirements are contracted out to civilians with no PT score. They make significantly more money than us. I have written contracts to hire back personnel with critical skills who were lost due to PT scores. Why would you chapter out a linguist who sits all day for being to slow at a run just to hire him back as a contractor at three times the pay???
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Army PRT is supposed to incorporate exercises that replicate and prepare Soldiers for MOS, Unit, and mission related tasks. This is supposed to reduce injuries and enhance mission readiness with out changing the standard.It is ththe job of the unit MFT to ensure the units PRT programs is linked to mission requirements.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), I apologize for the extremely late response. I saw your comment when you posted it 20 days ago and set it aside to respond to later, which then turned into me forgetting about it until now. To get on topic, you're absolutely correct insofar as your statement that MOS/Unit specific standards do not necessarily require lowering standards. To be fair though, my previous comments were in context to your complaints about losing an Arabic crypto linguist under the current one size fits all standards. It seemed to me that you were advocating for a lowering of standards, as I fail to see how anything short would have saved his career.
Also, I do recognize the culture difference and relatively added difficulty in maintaining physical fitness for your desk guys but this does not dissuade me of my previously stated opinions. The answer should be to fix the culture by mandating set times for PT and to engender a healthier work environment, not to reduce standards. If my previous units S1 shop can not only pass but exceed the APFT standards then I see no reason why anyone else with a desk job shouldn't be able to.
Also, I do recognize the culture difference and relatively added difficulty in maintaining physical fitness for your desk guys but this does not dissuade me of my previously stated opinions. The answer should be to fix the culture by mandating set times for PT and to engender a healthier work environment, not to reduce standards. If my previous units S1 shop can not only pass but exceed the APFT standards then I see no reason why anyone else with a desk job shouldn't be able to.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Kimbell
CPT (Join to see) - I believe you should have used where, instead of were, in your response to the Major. Since writing coherently, while in a leadership position, is important to you, spelling and/or the proper use of words, should be equally important.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google