"Fit, Not Fat:" making the US military's standards high again

[Cookie_]

Ranger School is getting a new PT test, which is a modified version of the E3B Physical Ftiness Assessment.

Comparison of the RS and [E3B] tests:

ACU and boots (w/ helmet+plate carrier)

800m run [1 mile]
30 "deadstop", or chest to ground, push-ups
100m sprint
16 40# sandbags onto 68inch platform
50m farmers carry w/ 2 40# water cans
25m high crawl, 25m 2-3 second rush
800m run [1 mile]

Rangers get 14 minutes total for theirs.
They'll then change into PTs, do a 32 minute 4 mile, then 6 chinups.

E3B is 27:30 for Infantry and 30:00 for everyone else.
-------------

I reeeeeeeeaaaaallllly want to see this become our pass/fail PT event, or at least our version of a CFT. Might have to change the uniform/time standards a bit if pushed out to the total force, but it'd still be a positive assessment in my book.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

@Cookie_

That looks intense...I Wanna try it when I can walk again.

 

[Box]

...WTF is wrong with our standards?

Its because combat is apparently based on subjective truth.

It breaks down like this:
If a 43 year old multiparous biological female engages in hand-to-hand combat with a 25 year old biological male - the universe intervenes and makes the fight fair
even though it is a knife fight
to the death
in the mud
in the dark of night
after both combatant have spent the last 2 hours walking in rough terrain with 50+ pounds of weapons and equipment
...because muh' eqwalitee

 

[Marauder06]

Its because combat is apparently based on subjective truth.

It breaks down like this:
If a 43 year old multiparous biological female engages in hand-to-hand combat with a 25 year old biological male - the universe intervenes and makes the fight fair
even though it is a knife fight
to the death
in the mud
in the dark of night
after both combatant have spent the last 2 hours walking in rough terrain with 50+ pounds of weapons and equipment
...because muh' eqwalitee

 

[Cookie_]

Hegseth directs DOD organizations to establish gender neutral standards for combat and non-combat troops.




Modify it to something hard but reasonable (probably 30-35 minutes for combat arms and 40-45 minutes all others) and keep the ACFT as the test for promotion points.

Biggest hurdle (IMO) is determining if the standard is MOS or unit based. Like the example from the article:

One soldier may hold an infantry designation but be assigned to a non-combat role like recruiting, while another may work in an administrative role in a front-line unit.

 

[Florida173]

Biggest hurdle (IMO) is determining if the standard is MOS or unit based.

I'd imagine the criteria can be both but with occasional exceptions. Plus give units the authority to raise their own standards as has been the case.

 

[Marauder06]

So... why are we limiting equal treatment to just combat MOSs? Equal rights, equal fights. No more advantaging people simply because of their sex or their age. You do X or you don't do X. Not "pretty good for a girl" or "OK for an old guy." You're <this level> of physical fitness, or you're not. I don't know why this is hard.

 

[Cookie_]

So... why are we limiting equal treatment to just combat MOSs? Equal rights, equal fights. No more advantaging people simply because of their sex or their age. You do X or you don't do X. Not "pretty good for a girl" or "OK for an old guy." You're <this level> of physical fitness, or you're not. I don't know why this is hard.

I read it as gender neutral standards across the board, with the differences being based on combat/non-combat, I.E. how the ACFT was originally sold to be by MOS.

I agree that there's no reason it should be this hard. All they got to do is stop dicking around with changing the ACFT and just give us the PFA as our assessment.

 

[Marauder06]

I read it as gender neutral standards across the board, with the differences being based on combat/non-combat, I.E. how the ACFT was originally sold to be by MOS.

I agree that there's no reason it should be this hard. All they got to do is stop dicking around with changing the ACFT and just give us the PFA as our assessment.

I re-read the article and it appears you're right.