Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, August 26. 2020

Fitness in the armed forces, reposted


US Army developing new fitness test after complaints over troop readiness



The new test does not adjust scores for age or gender, unlike the current test. It also adds exercises including dead lifts, sprints with 40-pound weights, power throws and a 2-mile run, among other new tasks.


I think I can pass the Army test. NOT the SEAL test. Can't bang out 100 pushups right now, or carry a man on my back for five miles.
Posted by Bird Dog in Physical Fitness at 13:51 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

With all due respect, Bird Dog, I doubt the pushup requirement is the only aspect of SEAL training you'd struggle with.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2shtey
#1 Erasmus on 2019-02-07 19:08 (Reply)
No kidding! I was just being cute.
#1.1 Bird Dog on 2019-02-07 19:39 (Reply)
It's the Two Mile Underwater Swim I have trouble with. I just can't hold my breath that long.
#1.1.1 SteveS on 2020-08-26 14:29 (Reply)
“The goal is about a having a more combat-ready army,"

until they strip the "more" out of that sentence the US Army is in big trouble.
#2 JTW on 2019-02-07 21:37 (Reply)
The army test is really intended as a minimum set of fitness standards for the uniformed soldier - that included those who will never see combat (not that they or their jobs are unimportant - their tireless efforts and resourcefulness saved my butt many times). Combat units are (and should be) held to a higher standard and the new test is more of a warm up than a challenge for certain elite units (75th Rangers, SF units, etc.).

The published SEAL minimums are not even real minimums. If you show up thinking you can "get by" with the minimum, you've already failed - physically and (more importantly) mentally.

You will "fail" (be pushed beyond your limits) at something. The idea is who will refuse to quit when it looks like there is no hope. The basic concept is that you need a certain minimum level of "fitness" (speed, strength, endurance, etc.) in order to be an elite performer, but much more importantly, we need to know that when things are at their worst, you will continue to fight and cover your buddy's ass.

RLTW
#3 mike m on 2019-02-07 22:16 (Reply)
Now if someone will just give the Air Force the same needed kick in the ass. I always competed with Army guys in joint schools, since Air Force standards were so wimpy (way back when I was active-duty with two good knees). Not that difficult to get up to soldier standard if you spent lunch hour in the gym--instead of the chow hall.

But yeah, those are minimum standards. In the old days, we kinda-sorta "knew" when the next big mix-up was due, and front-liners all went through "summer camp" to get ready for the Big Game. Nowadays, not so much. Sleep with a gun under your pillow, and your bag packed.
#4 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2020-08-26 14:44 (Reply)
I've been accused of being a cynic before, oh well, could it be that the Army is reinstating troop readiness standards now that they had to dial back in the past in order to admit women to combat ranks? Not that I have anything against women wanting to join the military as long as they meet the criteria needed for troop readiness, and not some lowered expectation.
#5 RebeccaH on 2020-08-26 15:17 (Reply)
As the proud parent of a Special Forces candidate, I can say that our son has shared some stories with me of how absolutely strenuous, mentally AND physically, the training is...
#6 The Distributist (Link) on 2020-08-26 16:06 (Reply)
Lowering standards for the benefit of women could only lead to people getting killed. There is a reason for the fitness--you might need to carry lots of gear or carry a wounded comrade out. Even support people get dragged into the fighting. In the gulf war a female support person (driving in a convoy) was captured and it nearly derailed the whole effort. A special forces rescue was needed. We do not respond the same to captured or wounded women as to men.
#7 cc (Link) on 2020-08-26 16:27 (Reply)
Lowering fitness standards for women is like lowering academic standards for POC. It defeats the purpose. How can you possibly have 'equality' when you use inequality to achieve it. Honestly you would think that the women would be the first to resent this and insist on equal treatment. Every male soldier knows that the women in his outfit cannot keep up and will be a problem when the going gets tough. Being young men, they don't really care about that and are just glad to have women along. BUT the going will get tough and unit effectiveness will suffer.

There is an alternative to this fatally flawed willing blindness. There are jobs better suited for women (I know, "you can't say that") just as there are jobs better suited to men. The military needs to return to real standards and keep women out of combat and other roles that they cannot handle. Our military should train like our lives depend on them not like we are trying to achieve some phony equality.

Extra points if you can guess within 10% what the combat load is for a GI in the field. It varies depending on the branch of service and the mission but it hovers around 70 lbs and commonly is above 90 lbs.
#7.1 OneGuy on 2020-08-26 18:51 (Reply)
That article is 18 months old and a brief internet search reveals that they still have not implemented the new tests. It appears the tests are to be implemented this fall but the scores won't count toward anything for an unspecified period of time. With women in combat roles the standards will have to be adjusted to the point of being meaningless.
#8 Guest on 2020-08-26 17:49 (Reply)
I googled what the actual test events were, but it didn't say what was needed to "pass"; it only gave the times/totals for each event at 60 points or 100 points. I assume there must be some sort of sliding scale and to pass you must get 60 on each event and a total of something over the minimum for each? I'd be interested to see if i could pass at 63 years old, i think i could get the minimums (although not really sure about a few things i've never done.
#9 bk on 2020-08-27 11:59 (Reply)
speaking as a 30 year veteran navy guy I have always had contempt for these stupid things.

Just how far do you think you can run on a ship?

Just how many pushups will save the ship when it is sinking?

Precisely how many situps will keep the ship from going down?

I kind of grew to hate the army/marine physical fitness craze as it cost me the only single AC/R tech on my ship in Saudi Arabia.

Physical fitness lovers can stuff it. You can't do a mile of running on a minesweeper, destroyer, cruiser or battleship and you know what? You should be heading to your battle station, not running away.

No, I never had any trouble meeting the standard and I used to show off my contempt for it by smoking cigarettes as I did it. In the Navy it was a pointless stupid way of kicking out fat sailors that did their jobs very well. I lost my ONLY ac/r tech to this stupid shit.
#10 Curtis on 2020-08-28 01:00 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.