What are your thoughts on a universal DOD fitness test?

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:05:57 -0500

Just a thought for discussion. I'm not on either side of the fence yet, but am wondering how a universal fitness test with the same standards (testing push ups, pull ups, sit ups and running)throughout every branch would work.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 28 at 2016 11:16 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:16:07 -0500

fitness needs are different, a universal test would be a universally bad idea

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Nov 28 at 2016 11:42 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:42:15 -0500

I like the idea, but dislike the idea as well. It'd be great to have us all held to high standards. The problem comes from the implementation. Do we grandfather in people on the old standards until they can pass the new standards or do we start immediately putting people on the chopping block because they can't compete with other branches.

For example... (not trying to start any branch fights) I share an MOS with the Navy so we went to the school house together and PTd together. Out of an entire Navy class, only 2-3 Sailors could keep up to the Marine level. We'd do a quick 3 mile run and the majority of them would fall out at the 1.5 mark because that's all they have to do for their test.

Now I know every branch is different, but for a universal test to be effective, we'd have to raise the standards to match the most strict requirements to pass so we're not bringing other branches down to a lower level.

Another thing to consider is if we only use a single test or multiple tests. Marines for example have both the PFT and the CFT. The PFT is designed to measure our basic physical fitness, but the CFT is designed to measure our endurance under duress. Now I know other branches simply do their basic physical fitness test twice a year, so would a universal fitness test also be including more combat oriented scenarios in the pass/fail categories.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Nov 28 at 2016 11:55 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:55:53 -0500

This is a case of "one size does NOT fit all". As an INTEL troop, I had no need to hump 20 miles down the road carrying 80 pounds of stuff on my back. Likewise, I don't see many submariners having that requirement either. Should the Army or Marines reduce their standards because the AF is more technical than physical? I submit to you that would be a mistake of epic proportion. Different branches and different jobs have different standards for a reason.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Nov 28 at 2016 12:10 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:10:12 -0500

While the idea may sound good on some levels, I have to side with SGM Erik Marquez and MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P on this. Sure, it would be great to hold everyone in the military to same standard of physical fitness but the idea doesn't really pass the common sense test (which probably means the DoD loves the idea and is rewriting the regs as we speak). I say leave it to the different branches, they know the exact requirements for their members and should be the ones in charge of ensuring the members meet those standards. I do, however, like the idea of a test based more on the Marines' CFT as Cpl Justin Goolsby mentioned in his post. I think a test should reflect more of what the service member is asked to do within his/her own job field but then again that idea is hard to standardized as well. Leaves a lot of room for conversation.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Nov 28 at 2016 12:21 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:21:46 -0500

May work for a basic entry level screening, but there are too many differences in duties to think it would work beyond basic training. Perhaps a one size fits all to get through basic but then need to meet different standards beyond that depending on your specialty and those standards determined by individual services.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 28 at 2016 12:34 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:34:06 -0500

I don't even think there should be a universal test within a single service. A pay clerk in the Army has very different physical requirements than an infantryman. A SEAL has very different requirements than that infantryman. Standards should apply to the job. Not the service or the uniform.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2016 12:56 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:56:42 -0500

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member This would not be a good idea. The fitness needs vary between services based on their mission. Within each branch, the fitness levels vary based on the MOS. One size does not fit all.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Nov 28 at 2016 1:08 PM

MGySgt James Forward — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:08:05 -0500

Non starter right off the get go. Each Service is different so there will always be differ PT standards. Would really like to see some Army, Navy and Air Force folks run the USMC PFT...oh yeah 3 miles...Semper Fi.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2016 1:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:13:34 -0500

I think it would make more sense to require that someone carry their weapon and a 40 pound ruck 10 miles in four hours. It's an endurance style event not already covered, however one that (IMO) anyone in uniform should be able to perform.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 28 at 2016 2:14 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:14:16 -0500

If you are doing it as a HEALTH test, it's fine.

If you are doing it as anything other than a HEALTH test (which is what we do), then the services need to have limited control of the proxies (individual events) that make up the test.

The problem is that you can have a Universal Health test, but that will not be used for anything else.... That's why the Marine Corps split the Physical Fitness Test and the Combat Fitness Test. They realized that the PFT (as a health test) did not meet specific needs, and could not evolve to the point where it could.

Response by MCPO Mark Durland made Nov 28 at 2016 2:46 PM

MCPO Mark Durland — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:46:43 -0500

So........determine a common low bar? Nah. Let the services determine their own stuff.

Love this topic and the answers, but fresh out of "thumbs" for y'all.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2016 3:48 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:48:12 -0500

So now for my opinion on this topic...

I agree with Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS that the pft is more of a health assessment, and in that spirit, can be used universally across the boards (can be used, but I personally would still leave it in the power of each branch to determine what they do). The standards are not all THAT different (except those marines...animals) and I don't believe maxing them means much of anything. I'm sure there are some high school track & field athletes who can max them.

Where I feel more strongly is this test only be used in supplement to a completely separate MOS/rate/afsc specific test, with both design and standard being drawn for the needs of the job.

The Army has already started moving in this direction by pitching a "physical ASVAB," which I personally believe to be as a result of making all jobs available to all genders. While someone can easily score a 50 or whatever the infantry ASVAB requirement is, doesn't mean they can ruck worth a lick. I think this has been a long time coming and is a step in the right direction.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2016 8:17 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 20:17:37 -0500

The different services will never agree on a single one uniform for all, never will a DoD wide fitness test get put into place.

Response by TSgt Daniel Wareham made Nov 29 at 2016 6:57 AM

TSgt Daniel Wareham — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 06:57:31 -0500

It wouldn't. The different branches have different jobs and different needs. One Size Fits all would hurt all the services. You don't need most Airmen to meet the physical standards of the infantry or the Marines. Yet if you had the Air Force standards for the Army or Marines, they would not be fit enough to do their jobs.

Response by SGT Chris McDonald made Nov 29 at 2016 8:17 AM

SGT Chris McDonald — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:17:58 -0500

Bad idea, Each branch has different job requirements that requires different skill sets. Let each set it's own PT requirements.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Nov 29 at 2016 8:27 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:27:50 -0500

Interesting reading the responses. I would have to come down more on the no size simply for the reason that the needs of the services are different, sometimes very much so. Fitness tests, even in boot camp should be designed to address those needs. For instance, I am a Coastie Vet, while it was very unlikely that I would hump a 80 lb pack, well for anything other than recreation. Working on small boats, often over the side and in rough weather, it was very likely that at some point in time in my career I would find myself unexpectedly treading water. To graduate boot camp you had to be able to swim a distance, (200 meters I think it was a long time ago), tread water for a certain time period, and master certain drown proofing techniques, skills that the average service member would not have a need for.

Response by PO2 W. Scott Decker made Nov 29 at 2016 9:27 AM

PO2 W. Scott Decker — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:27:25 -0500

As is usually the middle is the best solution. A minimum standard (I mean we all believe a military members of any branch or duty should be fit, right?) could be implimented, then when a cross duty issue arises we are not starting someone at a standard so low that he or she wil never meet what is needed. The individual service and duty within that service can set higher standard for those in highly physical duties. As a Sailor (ET2) who was in a technical field I was attached to November Company in Gitmo. This is a company that is part of Marine Ground Defense Force but is staffed by Navy personnel.

Response by COL John Hudson made Nov 29 at 2016 9:40 AM

COL John Hudson — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:40:40 -0500

Lots of water always boiling on this issue with no resolution in sight. There never will be a "universal" or locked in stone "standard one size fits all" physical fitness regimen as there is no "universal" or "standard" human body. I've seen a lot of changes come and go in the 30 years of my own personal Army career, and I was raised for 19 years prior to that in the Air Force. Regardless of how it all washes out, every PT program will address the differences in body and gender types, plus account for effects of aging. I wouldn't get too deep into this subject; just as one gets comfortable with an existing program, some upper-echelon type will come along with the latest and greatest. I suppose some of the more important factors in focusing a PT program is the type of warfare on the planning horizon and the environment it's aimed at. Keep in mind that different roles played by the separate forces (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard) will do more to influence branch specific PT requirements than just about anything else.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Nov 29 at 2016 10:07 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:07:14 -0500

Does every MOS, and service have the same fitness requirements?, would tech weenies, office Pogue, pilots, do the same fitness requirements, as grunts, cannon cookers? Think on it, not all carry 1/2 to 2/3 their body WT for miles on a regular basid

Response by Cpl Mark Lee made Nov 29 at 2016 10:16 AM

Cpl Mark Lee — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:16:15 -0500

Never. Marines and SpecFor should not reduce their standards and the rest of the forces cant keep up to the higher standards.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 29 at 2016 10:25 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:25:51 -0500

I do not see this as a viable action.

Response by Col Dana Jacobson made Nov 29 at 2016 10:36 AM

Col Dana Jacobson — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:36:09 -0500

I was very pleased when the AF upped its requirements for the PFT, and the reason it did so was that when we started deploying in a joint environment, it became glaringly obvious how much of a weak link many airmen were. I was a JAG and sat at a desk (when I wasn't serving as OIC of Quality Control for mobility), but what happens when the balloon goes up? Everybody has to grab a gun and fight, and I didn't want to be the weak link. Does that mean the same standard for all services? No, but the A/B comparison in theater shamed my branch into making airmen more fit.

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Nov 29 at 2016 10:43 AM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:05 -0500

Five years retired, I would still say no if I weren't. Services need different standards based on what their requirements are. The AF doesn't need to run 3 miles or do numerous pull ups as the Marines do. The AF PJ's would be an exception. Same for the Navy; as a staff corps officer I wouldn't need the same level of fitness or a higher PT standard as a combat officer. I always detested running going back to my Army basic days when we ran in boots and the old green fatigues. Never had a bit of trouble wearing body armor, weapons and other gear at 55 and outside the wire.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 11:16 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:16:27 -0500

I personally think it's not a good idea, why? Because each military branch of services curtail their physical fitness standards to what their needs are. For example, a sailor who is stationed on board a ship will not need to do combat training in the mountains or desert. But I see your point in this matter.
With the experience that I had gained while serving in the Marine Corps I can honestly say that we as a military services need to concentrate on our mind, body, and spirit so that our current military personnel understand why we are a different breed from the rest of our society. It's one thing to do pull-ups, sit-ups, and run for time, but this is not combat training in my mind. Are military services need to be in close combat arms training doing our job to the best of our abilities so we don't loose people in combat.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Nov 29 at 2016 11:39 AM

SGT James Colwell — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:39:35 -0500

I so issues. 1. There is a potential for dropping the standards to accommodate all branches. Not a good idea. 2. Maintaining the highest standards available will, unfortunately weed out a relatively high number of service members who would otherwise pass the current standards. This can be a double edged sword. You can lose some good people who are otherwise qualified in their specialty. Thte other side is that you can lose some lazy people who are not that big of a loss.

Response by SSgt Ray McCaslin made Nov 29 at 2016 11:42 AM

SSgt Ray McCaslin — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:42:11 -0500

As a minimum standard of Fitness for all branches that would be fine. Individual job requirements would require Fitness standards based on what would be required of that job. That's for the most part the way it is now. Getting back to minimum fitness standards, an office clerk should be able to meet a fitness standard that would require continued self effort in order to pass the standard annually, better yet semi annually.

Response by LTC George Morgan made Nov 29 at 2016 11:57 AM

LTC George Morgan — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:57:00 -0500

You mean there isn't one?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 12:18 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:18:57 -0500

Let's see if I can convince you. My question is, "What is the logic behind universal DOD fitness test?" I cannot find one logic. Just because we are all service men and women, it does not mean we are fighting the same combat or the same way. If we increase the standards so everyone can be like a Marine, we are making a risk of losing qualified personnel, whose jobs do not require holding a rifle or running for a long distance. If we reduce the standards, many unit will not meet their readiness.

Response by Sgt Able Snider made Nov 29 at 2016 12:26 PM

Sgt Able Snider — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:26:10 -0500

That it won't work. Marines need to be held to a higher standard than say a Navy seaman because of their jobs.

Response by PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM made Nov 29 at 2016 12:44 PM

PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:44:46 -0500

The Kakhi Koated Klowns in the pentagon (No disrespect to anyone who does not fall into that category) come up with these stupid ideas and push them out without doing any research and end up wasting money and screwing the pooch. This idea is as bad as putting the NAVY into blue Camo. like who are they supposed to be hiding from? Mermaids?? Seabats? They look stupid and are hated by most of the troops. A big waste of Millions of dollars. They did the same stupid thing by trying to do away with the A-10 Warthog when it was needed the most for ground support and attach in the sand box. The capital is not the only thing that needs to be cleaned out, we need to put some WARRIORS back into the pentagon and get rid of the pencil pushers.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Nov 29 at 2016 1:23 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:23:11 -0500

I think it's a good start in continuing the de-provincialization and increased jointness of the military. We talk "One Team, One Fight" but walk it more like "Many Teams, Many Fights. From using different radios that didn't talk to each other, to having different fraternization rules (up until 2000), to, more recently, the trend in having "distinctive" uniforms, we tend to highlight the uniqueness of our particular service while undermining the similarities. Sure submariners have little in common pilots or infantrymen, but then again, an AF SP, an Army MP, and a Navy MA al have similar missions and all services can be in the same logistical convoy in a theater of war. There's something to be said for having a universal test across the services and still allowing individual services (or even MOSs) have different standards.

Response by Cpl Thomas Yarbrough made Nov 29 at 2016 1:45 PM

Cpl Thomas Yarbrough — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:45:56 -0500

I'm a Marine. I don't think the other services should or could match our physical readiness. No offense intended, we just have different jobs.

Response by SrA Ralph Gilbert made Nov 29 at 2016 2:34 PM

SrA Ralph Gilbert — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:34:02 -0500

The AF could refine it's fitness test ,if it has not already . Having everyone do a 1.5 mile run once a year and watch senior nco's face plant because they hold down a deck all week . But how to do it, when the first go's maybe at 0730 one week and 2000 the next , and the crews need to prep the ac's an hour or more early . Do you have everyone train or do each shift train on their own at the start of their shift , what about bases in AZ, NM,Tx do you want people doing pt at 1500 when it's 105 in the shade ?

Response by SCPO Frank Carson made Nov 29 at 2016 2:46 PM

SCPO Frank Carson — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:46:16 -0500

This is a bad idea, we should be thinking about physical fitness for police and fire departments first... lol

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Nov 29 at 2016 3:01 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:01:41 -0500

your joking right? maybe make it gender/age neutral at the same time :)

Response by CPT Chris Newport made Nov 29 at 2016 3:45 PM

CPT Chris Newport — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:45:39 -0500

It will clearly diminish military standards just as the other politically motivated reductions to get the "right sort" in uniform for their photo ops.

Response by SSG Ken Gilder made Nov 29 at 2016 3:52 PM

SSG Ken Gilder — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:52:16 -0500

Each service has different requirements, so a "one size fits all" approach does not seem realistic.

Response by SGM Douglas Lack made Nov 29 at 2016 9:05 PM

SGM Douglas Lack — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:05:36 -0500

Pretty much a useless idea. It would have to be set to lowest possible level needed. Pretty a silly idea that would produce no benefit but cost a lot of money to implement. Probably thought of by the same person that believes women can do anything a man can do. By the way if you think men can do anything a women can do try having a baby. People are meant to be different by design. How boring it would be if everyone was the same.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Monk made Nov 29 at 2016 9:30 PM

SSG Jeffrey Monk — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:30:49 -0500

Job specific. Combat Arms and Spec Ops have a different job than a FOBIT and the Team depends on each link being able to pull their own weight. But if your a female truck driver and can't change your own tire and I have to pull guys off security duty in a war zone to fix your problem. Then you don't belong there doing that job. I enjoyed the days we did Sergeants Time PT. It focused on your job to build up strength in that area. Whether it was doing a cross country run in MOPP Gear with arty sims and CS grenades to litter runs with timed field first aid. We got training while working up a hell of a sweat. Trust me, doing a run with a TOW and Its equipment is a Team Builder.

Response by LtCol Mac McCarty made Nov 29 at 2016 10:20 PM

LtCol Mac McCarty — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:20:28 -0500

No way.

Response by LCpl Sam Southard made Nov 29 at 2016 10:33 PM

LCpl Sam Southard — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:33:03 -0500

Each branch serves a different role in combat universal fitness standards could weaken the needs of a particular branch or keep an individual with a specific aptitude from serving an important role in one service simply because they don't meet the requirements of a different branch.bad idea. Next someone will was universal boot camp

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made Nov 30 at 2016 8:24 AM

SGT Tim Fridley — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:24:31 -0500

Would not be a big change from the Army APFT just adding pull-ups might have a greater impact on the Air force and Navy/Coast Guard. When I first joined in the late 70s had a 5 event test.

Response by TSgt Ricto Ectol made Nov 30 at 2016 8:27 AM

TSgt Ricto Ectol — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:27:03 -0500

I got hurt very early in my career because in it's infinite wisdom the Air Force decided 2 tiny airman barely taller than the M-60 should be the gunner and AG in Security Forces for ICBM's. As the 203 gunner I had to hump all the extra 500+ rounds of 308 simply because they weren't strong enough to carry it and I was. Then I got on the ice covered mountain and pancaked face down. Ammo cans hit me between the kevlar vest and the waistband.
Certain career fields should require increased PT standards. Any job that clearly requires movement of heavy objects or physical intensity on a daily basis just to do the job requires people physically tall and strong enough to make it happen.
Security Forces has come along way since 1999, but I'm permanently disabled, retired and have problems with mobility every day just getting around my house. At 36 that's what I have for 15 years of honorable service to my nation.

Response by LCpl Bradley Otto made Nov 30 at 2016 11:27 AM

LCpl Bradley Otto — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:27:08 -0500

That's a nice thought, but it won't happen. Some services won't lower there standards to allow the others to meet the minimum grade. I am sure each service feels they have a good test. But I know from experiance most wouldn't be able to finish the Marine basic fit test.

Response by MAJ Tex Hall made Nov 30 at 2016 12:40 PM

MAJ Tex Hall — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:40:04 -0500

Not a viable option. Navy/Coast Guard folks don't need to do beach landings like Marines do. It would almost be better to have different fitness tests for different specialties in each branch of service, but impractical. There are added parts for specialty schools (Airborne, Ranger, BUDS, Delta, etc) but there should be some adds for certain demanding jobs in all services that relate to the specific different physical requirements of those jobs.

Response by MSgt Vernon Anderson made Nov 30 at 2016 2:40 PM

MSgt Vernon Anderson — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:40:03 -0500

Never did like them starting with Dr Cooper's 5BX program BUT did them every year when required
while serving in AF Police career field and as K( Handler

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 1 at 2016 1:18 AM

SPC Byron Skinner — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 01:18:58 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner…Good question and it does have an answer. For Combat arms troops a high level of fitness is required and more emphasis should be put on upper body strength. As far as running, its really counter productive to run, that's not the purpose of their job….Common sense which the military has a lack of on many issues says that not all jobs in the military, in fact the majority of MOS don;t require the fitness level of a Marine Rifleman or Army Infantry. As far as who is the better fit "don't mean nottin'" To much time is taken up with PT and on any base the most treated health issue crowing base hospitals are injuries that occurred during physical fitness. More good people every year have to leave the service because of a PT injury the are wounded in combat. The military need brains. General Douglas Mac Arthur nor General Dwight Eisenhower probably couldn't even run a mile. Eisenhower put away two packs of Camels a day, unfiltered. Our military now has Generals who pride themselves on running a six minute mile, but they can win war's…The moral of this response is that most of the military doesn't need to have the fitness of an Infantryman but should be valued as intelligent highly skill workers. Many good men and women have been kicked out of the service along with billions of dollars of training leaving the military because they couldn't fill the requirements of some arbitery fitness standard that is meaningless to their MOS…All this goes back to a quote from Lincoln when he was told that General Grant had a drinking problem: "Go fond out what brand he drinks and send a barrel to all of my Generals."

Response by LCpl William Perry made Dec 1 at 2016 12:29 PM

LCpl William Perry — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:29:39 -0500

I think this might be a bad idea. I say with this in mind, that as my time in the Corps showed me the importance of being fit to do the job that I was trained to do humping an M-60 but see that there are other services that are more in need of the tech skills that the right fit might not be able to get in. Even in the Corps you see such a drop rate during Boot, could you imagine the number of recruits that would not be in the service if a harder PFT was across the board? And to make it easier is not what Marines are made of.

Response by SCPO Frank Carson made Dec 1 at 2016 12:48 PM

SCPO Frank Carson — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:48:57 -0500

I was in the Navy, If you are trying to make me something other than a Sailor, forget it. The last two guys to die in Centcom were Navy Chiefs and Sailors! Do not call me a Soldier! I am not in the military, I am in the Navy. Hope you understand not all SUVs are Fords. A single standard puts us in the "aren't they all alike?" bucket. I joined the US Navy for the Tradition, I don't want to confuse people by saying I am in the Military (they think Army) I am a Sailor, do not dilute my Navy with the one size fits all. Sorry for the rant!

Response by SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) made Dec 1 at 2016 1:21 PM

SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:21:29 -0500

Initially we would lose over 2/3 of our military of course. However it would make for a more even distribution and capable military.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 1 at 2016 1:22 PM

SPC John Decker — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:22:41 -0500

As the five services have five different mission parameters, I don't think a standardized physical standard would be efficient. Yes, we all went/go through a basic training that instills the basic combat requirements for each branch but the idea of a navy gunners mate being up to the physical requirements of a marine seems a bit excessive and perhaps more costly than needed.

Response by SSgt Robert Bingham made Dec 1 at 2016 1:27 PM

SSgt Robert Bingham — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:27:28 -0500

Yes, you could use the same test with different classifications and requirements for different personnel. For example spec ops class I, infantry etc. Class II, Maintenance personnel class III and so on until you got all the way down to admin/finance. Thus would let everyone be evaluated according to their specific job requirement. Individuals at joint bases would all be familiar with PT standards and allow cross branch testing/comoradery and possibly increase overall force fitness.

Response by Jeff Castleberry made Dec 1 at 2016 7:04 PM

Jeff Castleberry — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:04:58 -0500

It only makes sense that different branches of service will require different training. Training that fits their daily responsibilities...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2016 7:47 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:47:09 -0500

I would rather see universal basic combat training standards myself. In the AF we often don't even see our duty weapon for years at a time.

Response by CPO Henry Enterline made Dec 1 at 2016 11:07 PM

CPO Henry Enterline — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:07:52 -0500

After 3 months submerged, I would have loved to be able to run 3 miles. Stationary bike, maybe some dumbells. Submarines: Just a different kind of way to kick ass.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Dec 2 at 2016 10:49 AM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:49:46 -0500

To be honest to make first class on Pft wasn't really all that tough, I've never ever seen anyone fail a test. Is asking someone to do 12-14 pull-ups, 60 sit-ups, and. 3 mile run at say 20-21 minutes. That's enough for a first class pft score.

Passing is like 3 pull-ups, can't remember the sit ups, and a 3 mile run under 28 minutes. You can almost walk thst time.

To max the pft test I believe was 20 pull-ups, 60 sit-ups timed, 3 mile run under 18 minutes. Most of the Force Recon guys max it.

I just can't believe when I read that guys can fail a pft test where the minimum to pass is ridiculously easy, that's someone who gives no effort at all. They shouldn't be in uniform sorry. I don't care whether your a grunt , Intel, a cook, you still have to pass it. You never know, IMO if your at a FOB your in a position you might have to defend yourself., combat is not predictable. Maybe the Marine credo "every Marine a rifleman " doesn't apply across the board. It should, everyone should be able to meet minimum physical standards and be able to defend themselves and their buddies.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Dec 3 at 2016 1:42 PM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Sat, 03 Dec 2016 13:42:18 -0500

This is just as ridiculous as the conversations we had here earlier about all having the same uniform, or merge the Army and Marines. It always comes down to the Marines getting rid of their better looking uniforms, making USMC Boot Camp less stressful, having the Marines adopt an easier PFT, or having the Marines stop shooting at targets 500 meters away, or deciding to review what is really necessary to be a Marine or some special forces unit because they want women in there even though the dropout rate was 80% for the Rangers and 99% for Marine Infantry Officer (which will also mean the male graduates will not have to meet the higher standards of earlier graduates), you name it, the list goes on an on. There is room for everyone to have their niche and have their own uniform and their own PFT standards. Watching Against the Odds on AHC is a great way to get educated on why the physical and emotional standards are so high for Marines or other elite units. For example, at Dai
Do, Vietnam: 10,000 NVA built 3 massive underground complexes across the river from a major, critical operations base. One of them shoots at a riverine patrol boat, tipping off our forces to someone being in the jungle across the river. So, typical Marine Corps style, they send 150 Marines to investigate. They meet immediate resistance but quickly take the first objective. They press the fight and meet overwhelming fire from the enemy positions. They throw another company into the battle. These 300 or so Marines continue to overtake the second complex, but take 80% casualties at this point. Do they turn back? No, they press the attack even though they now realize the forces they have encountered are vastly larger than their own units. This doesn't dissuade these Marines who press the attack into the night. They are thinking they will all be dead by the next morning, but the sun rises and the NVA are gone. Intel later learns about how those Marines were outgunned 60 to 1! But, because they never backed down and continued to advance, the NVA believed their whole plan to stage a 2nd Tet Offensive had been discovered, and so retreated. They didn't know these few Marines were basically just out walking the dog and willing to fight anyone they came across. No grand plan except kill people. It's hard work which requires hard people to do it.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2016 1:23 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Dec 2016 01:23:23 -0500

I'm always down for fitness, however, I'm not too convinced on creating a standardized fitness test across the DOD. I may just be set in my ways.

Response by MSgt Dennis Panas made Dec 27 at 2016 8:00 PM

MSgt Dennis Panas — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 20:00:35 -0500

I think having one size fits all does not work. We all have different jobs in the military,some do physical work and others do paperwork, also age plays into it not all 40-50yr Olds can keep up with or do as much as a 18yr old. I am retired now and still in pretty good shape,but had to have a partial knee replacement do to all the running and pounding on the joints. So no one size does not fit

Response by CW3 George Fitzgerald made Jan 5 at 2017 2:35 PM

CW3 George Fitzgerald — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:35:25 -0500

Not unless they finally decide to combine all the services under one umbrella... Then you will still have branch requirements, infantry vs intelligence vs aviation vs medical etc...

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Jan 12 at 2017 12:26 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:26:12 -0500

Bad idea, very bad idea. What is vital and important for one branch is not the same for the others. For example, as a Coastie, we had to pass a swim test to graduate boot camp. Important in a service where you are working over the sides of boats and ships, maintaining aids to navigation in the water, going from ship to boat and vice versa multiple times a day as part of your duties. Not so much for a grunt humping a 75 lb pack miles a day and crawling through terrain.

As far as actually physical training, as my Broolklyn born father would have said, fogetaboudit. Many, if not most USCG units, especially the older ones barely had enough room to get the job done, never mind physical training. Oh we probably could have done calisthenics on the flight deck ... if there wasn't a helo embarked that is. Running, not gonna happen, to many trip, slip and other hazards to negotiate. Not that I was likely to have to run even 100 yards on a 210' ship. Grip strength? Yea. As the saying went, "One hand for you, one for the ship," and we were not poking around a pond. Oh and then there were the various towers up to 625' I had to climb, that did take a little endurance, and a bit of crazy. Don't think they had any PE for cramming a 6' body into 5' space though ....

Response by MSG Mark Million made Jan 31 at 2017 11:49 AM

MSG Mark Million — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:49:13 -0500

I do not believe a universal fitness test would be a good idea. Bottom line, some people that do an excellent job and we sorely need would not meet the standards for other branches. Lowering the standards of the branches that now have higher standards would only degrade the abilities of those branches. That would likely translate to lives lost.