What is the purpose of the new Army ACFT?

Jake Lang — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 04:15:06 -0400

Hello RallyPoint, hope everyone is well. I noticed that starting October of this year, the Army is changing their APFT to the new ACFT for physical fitness standards and testing. I myself plan to enlist soon, so I couldn’t help but notice this topic itself. Many soldiers themselves have complained about how lackluster the standard passing scores seem on paper, however, we also have those that were the first to test it out and have stated that it was quite difficult in actuality when performing the test. The Army has also said that this new ACFT is to better gauge and test a soldier’s physical combat capabilities (and to an extent, I do see some similarities between the exercises and the routine of those who serve on the frontlines from videos that I’ve seen) and to better prepare trainees for the rigors of actual combat. However, I’ve also heard from a few Army vets that they wouldn’t be surprised if this was all just to somehow lower standards and make it easier for trainees to get through basic (if that were the case, that would be very disheartening) just to get more bodies in. One thing I do find interesting is that it is based on MOS (Combat Arms would no doubt have higher score standards than a Support Service or Specialty MOS branch).

Anyways, I pretty much wanted to see what your guys’ thoughts are on this new ACFT. Hope you are all well.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Jun 27 at 2020 8:52 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 08:52:24 -0400

The purpose is to make a test that is realistic to what we do in combat. The APFT focused too much on aerobic performance and too little on strength and was actually easy to pass if you actually tried to stay in shape a bit. I was scoring 280 + on the 21 year old scale at age 40 as a National Guard Officer. The new test covers strength, aerobic performance, anaerobic performance and muscle stamina. It is also designed to be tiered to job requirements. The physical performance required by someone in a Light Infantry Unit is not the same as that of a soldier working in Finance. It's a step in the right direction as long as they don't screw it up to make it more "inclusive".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2020 11:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 11:41:25 -0400

The new test is a much better PT test. It’s harder to max and easier to pass, and much more indicative of the strength you need in combat. It’s actually extremely difficult to max the ACFT. Old vets who sit around remarking about changes in the Army say all kinds of things because they’re paranoid and see conspiracies everywhere, and nothing will ever be as hard as it was when they were in. The Army is a living, breathing, ever changing and growing entity. I joined in 1998 and the people are different, the leadership is different, the rules are different, the culture is massively different.
As for why the ACFT is so easy to pass - the Arly doesn’t want to institute a change that causes us to lose thousands of Soldiers to a teat they can’t pass and haven’t been trained for. Imagine you’ve been in the Army 12 years, doing pushups, sit-ups, and run for 12 years. Suddenly you’re getting kicked out because you can’t do a leg tuck. Even if only 2% failed - a statistically insignificant amount - 9,000 active duty troops would be kicked out and even more National Guard and Reservists.
Soldiers have been asking for a fair, PT test that is not scaled for age or sex for decades. It definitely causes a rift between people when one person can run their two mile in 16 minutes and max, but another can run their two mile in the same time and nearly fail. When you take those two equal performances and give one a whole bunch of promotion points that help them get promoted before the other, it creates an inequality between the two Soldiers. So, this was the Army’s response, a fair and unbiased PT test

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jun 27 at 2020 6:43 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 18:43:55 -0400

Look a test is a test -the APFT was very easy to pass, and we could do it at the drop of a hat. The ACFT looks like folks are going to have to work on it and stay in shape. As for MOS- combat arms are the most Active, Support, not as much.

Response by SFC Kelly Fuerhoff made Jun 27 at 2020 10:24 PM

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 22:24:27 -0400

It's ultimately some higher ups just want a "fitter" force - but just based on looks. Behind the scenes it's been said that they don't care if they have a smaller force as long as it's fitter. That's why they were trying to not have any alternate events on it - to get rid of those legitimately injured. Legal squashed that and said there had to be alternates - so they made them the most asinine alternate events they could.

The vets you hear talking are idiots - let's be realistic because they aren't trying to get more people. They want to get rid of the people that the system has broken and destroyed.

It's ACFT 2.0 now as well...so just be aware it's likely to change before it's actually finalized. Covid threw a wrench into it.

I'm all for replacing the APFT - but it doesn't have to be the ACFT. Especially when a pandemic hits and all gyms are closed and you have people who have a permanent profile who can't work on any of the alternate events because the gym is closed. Not everyone has the money to drop on a small gym in their home.

I don't care who disagrees. If they want to start treating us like pro athletes then they need to protect the investments they put into us. Get personal trainers in every battalion or brigade. Dietitians. Do for the entire force what they do for SF. Not just dump us when we get hurt. Usually people get serious issues because minor injuries get ignored.

I'll be interested to see what version we are when I can retire as it's supposed to take 5 years to finalize the standards...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2020 2:07 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:07:26 -0400

This is personal opinion but one I find true:

The purpose of the ACFT is to force Soldiers to workout properly and to incorporate weight training into PT that also includes functional fitness.
For years I saw and have been a part of PT plans that consists of running, push ups and sit ups for 1.5 hours. Why? Because that's all you had to do to be "physically fit" as far as the Army was concerned. It is no secret that if you run enough miles and do enough push ups that those events will probably see some sort of increase. However, few NCOs researched proper running progressions so running every day at the same pace often broke individual Soldiers.
Since the implementation of the ACFT, those same Soldiers and NCOs that want to "cheat the test" by doing just those exercises required of you, will at a minimum, do a mixture of strength training, functional movements, and cardio. I have seen most Soldiers incorporate deadlifts and kettlebell swings into their workouts as well as explosive movements to help with the standing power throw and sprint drag carry.
The ACFT has 100% done what it was aimed to do. There will always be critiques about standards and the events but let's he honest, the APFT was not remotely hard to pass either. Would I have chosen the standing power throw or leg tucks if I made the test? Probably not. But I can't think of a better exercise that also appeals to everyone so who cares, get the job done. Tailor your pt towards the ACFT and overall, you will get a more fit unit.

Response by CPT Carolyn Andrews made Oct 14 at 2020 11:25 PM

CPT Carolyn Andrews — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:25:13 -0400

What is the difference between the two?

Response by SSG Brian Carpenter made Oct 25 at 2020 1:41 PM

SSG Brian Carpenter — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:41:00 -0400

Jack it has no purpose... How many units go to war and conduct physical training? This new test is not good for the entire service. It is something a enior combat soldier thought was a good idea. No way can the Army meet it's future recruitment goals with this test across the board.i would put big money on a bet that this program does not survive 24 months after complete introduction. Congress is already upset about it so chances are it will not stay. You can say it proves combat fitness all you want but if your job requires you to sit in a bunckered site and order supplies or work in a hard site medical facility how does this pertain to you? I was 100% HOOAH trust me. But I know this would not have grown with the military I grew up in. Use the old pt program and TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN your soldiers to stand up to field conditions a fitness test will never accomplish this.