Sex-neutral army physical tests (1 Viewer)

[Oozlefinch]

What am I missing?

Everything.

And a military forced march is not a "walk".

They have been trying to bring that down for decades now. And instead it keeps going up.

 

[OlNate]

Everything.

And a military forced march is not a "walk".

They have been trying to bring that down for decades now. And instead it keeps going up.

Sorry, i don't find this post enlightening or convincing. Perhaps you have some clear evidence to counter the articles I provided? Or maybe some specific examples I'd what I'm missing, that go a little deeper than "everything"?

Just not a lot to with with here, bud.

 

[Rich2018]

Is that 11 minute mile while wearing full combat gear? Because if not, it's unusually slow.

IIRC in the British army, we had a fitness test called the BFT

We had to run 1.5 miles in about 11 minutes while wearing boots, combat pants and a t-shirt
IIRC that was the time for soldiers under 30.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Perhaps you have some clear evidence to counter the articles I provided?

The weight is not going to go down.

The one from the GAO talks about how the minimal equipment is about 120 pounds. And that is just the basics, including body armor, weapon and ammunition, and food and water. You just can't get it any lighter, period.

Just the body armor alone is around 50 pounds. And that is up significantly from the PAGSAT system we used in the 1980s and 1990s. The amount of water has also increased significantly. Up from around 4 pounds of water to the current which is over 10 pounds of water. I can go on and on, but I doubt you will care.

I first joined in 1983, and just recently retired from the military. I have seen the weights increase over the decades, and most of it was for damned good reasons. And absolutely nothing seems to be happening to decrease that, but instead will make the wrights even more. I have absolutely never seen military gear other than radios and other electronics like night visions, LASER designators or GPS get smaller. Absolutely everything from backpacks and sleeping systems to tents and everything else has always gotten larger and heavier.

At my last units, they always laughed when we were doing a "conditioning march", and instead of the MOLLE pack I elected to use my own ALICE (large) as it was simply a superior pack that was better than the MOLLE is.

I think the biggest problem is you are believing things you are reading on the Internet, and not actually applying actual real world or personal experience at all. Everything had gotten heavier, and will continue to get heavier.

And a "Forced March" is not a "walk". It is far closer to "speed walking" than what you would do just strolling through a park. On average a 6 mph pace, 100 steps per minute. Covering about 5 miles in an hour, then taking a 10 minute break before you rinse and repeat for another hour.



And the above is just a "conditioning hike", that is not even under the full combat load. No body armor, no weapons, no helmet. Probably just doing 5 miles or so from the barracks and back.

And the above weights? That is the lightest you will find, those are for the "Rifleman".

If you are in the "Weapons Platoon" or "Weapons Company", it only goes up from there. If you are the crew of an M224 60mm mortar, add from 10-15 more pounds each plus. Each member in the 3 man team is going to have all of that above, and add those weights for the various parts of the mortar. Or if heavy mortars (81mm), grab your sack. That is an additional 90 pounds, split among the three man team. The worst being the 35 pound mortar tube. Plus ammo weight, from 3 pounds for the 60mm to 10 pounds for the 81mm. And that is per round, each member will be lugging from 3-6 rounds each in addition to everything else.

8 grenades each, that is about 8 pounds.

I was a Combat Lifesaver, add another 6 pounds or so.

 

[OlNate]

The weight is not going to go down.

The one from the GAO talks about how the minimal equipment is about 120 pounds. And that is just the basics, including body armor, weapon and ammunition, and food and water. You just can't get it any lighter, period.

Just the body armor alone is around 50 pounds. And that is up significantly from the PAGSAT system we used in the 1980s and 1990s. The amount of water has also increased significantly. Up from around 4 pounds of water to the current which is over 10 pounds of water. I can go on and on, but I doubt you will care.

I first joined in 1983, and just recently retired from the military. I have seen the weights increase over the decades, and most of it was for damned good reasons. And absolutely nothing seems to be happening to decrease that, but instead will make the wrights even more. I have absolutely never seen military gear other than radios and other electronics like night visions, LASER designators or GPS get smaller. Absolutely everything from backpacks and sleeping systems to tents and everything else has always gotten larger and heavier.

At my last units, they always laughed when we were doing a "conditioning march", and instead of the MOLLE pack I elected to use my own ALICE (large) as it was simply a superior pack that was better than the MOLLE is.

I think the biggest problem is you are believing things you are reading on the Internet, and not actually applying actual real world or personal experience at all. Everything had gotten heavier, and will continue to get heavier.

And a "Forced March" is not a "walk". It is far closer to "speed walking" than what you would do just strolling through a park. On average a 6 mph pace, 100 steps per minute. Covering about 5 miles in an hour, then taking a 10 minute break before you rinse and repeat for another hour.



And the above is just a "conditioning hike", that is not even under the full combat load. No body armor, no weapons, no helmet. Probably just doing 5 miles or so from the barracks and back.

And the above weights? That is the lightest you will find, those are for the "Rifleman".

If you are in the "Weapons Platoon" or "Weapons Company", it only goes up from there. If you are the crew of an M224 60mm mortar, add from 10-15 more pounds each plus. Each member in the 3 man team is going to have all of that above, and add those weights for the various parts of the mortar. Or if heavy mortars (81mm), grab your sack. That is an additional 90 pounds, split among the three man team. The worst being the 35 pound mortar tube. Plus ammo weight, from 3 pounds for the 60mm to 10 pounds for the 81mm. And that is per round, each member will be lugging from 3-6 rounds each in addition to everything else.

8 grenades each, that is about 8 pounds.

I was a Combat Lifesaver, add another 6 pounds or so.

I'm not trying to dispute the idea of what it has been, or call into question what you have learned from your personal experience, but it's tough to simply accept the assertion that "the weight is not going to go down" with the articles I posted in mind.

Do you feel strongly that the weight cannot be reduced, despite the ongoing efforts going back at least 12 years, using these articles as a reference, and the introduction of lighter weight materials? If so, why?

At this point it would seem to me that having a different level of difficulty for women is detrimental first and foremost to the women being admitted - although I will admit that's just at first glance, I haven't seen any statistics showing an increased rate of deaths in women vs men because of these "easier" tests. But at face value, it seems to be logical that if a certain requirement was set for men then it should be the same for women to, not to keep women out of the military, but to ensure, as much as possible in this context, that they have the same survivability of men. If the phsyical requirements are changing due to technological advancements, perhaps the testing requirements need not be so stringent...otherwise, what's the point of the advances?

 

[braindrain]

This article is from 2013. One would assume there is no less desire to lessen field gear weight.

https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/91655-new-materials-allow-soldiers-to-shed-weight#:~:text=One%2Dpiece%20aluminum%20forgings%20also,highly%20operator%20independent%20and%20repeatable.%E2%80%9D

From 2017...continuing trend.

Personal Protective Equipment: Army and Marine Corps Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce the Weight of Items Worn or Carried in Combat

What GAO Found The Army and Marine Corps have developed requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) to address operational threats in ground...

www.gao.gov

And finally, this, from this year:

The Army wants to get the load soldiers carry down to 55 pounds

The Army wants to cut down on redundant and excess equipment that its soldiers carry into battle, hoping that none carry more than 55 pounds.

taskandpurpose.com

Looks like the goal is 55 pounds, which should broaden the eligibility of people who would be able to perform this service, for both men and women. A 10 mile walk carrying 55 pounds is a bit of a different proposition than 200 pounds, wouldn't you say?

Sooo...if kit carrying requirements are being greatly lowered via weight reductions, I would imagine that hand to hand combat is about the only thing left that does have a "damned thing to do with it"... hehe...

What am I missing?

Do you have any idea how many times I have heard stories like this in my almost 20 year career. Literally dozens. And guess what my ruck weighs more now then it did when I got in.

And we have just recently got issued new radios. Both inter-team and manpac radios. Both heavier then the ones they replace.

The new rifle the Army is replacing the M4 with, heavier.
The ammo that rifle shoots, also heavier.
Water, a major weight a soldier carry’s isn’t getting any lighter either.

So what you are missing is that building a force that depends on what might happen in terms of gear getting lighter is a bad idea.
What happens if what normally happens with plans like this comes to pass and female soldiers can’t carry the weight.

 

[OlNate]

Do you have any idea how many times I have heard stories like this in my almost 20 year career. Literally dozens. And guess what my ruck weighs more now then it did when I got in.

And we have just recently got issued new radios. Both inter-team and manpac radios. Both heavier then the ones they replace.

The new rifle the Army is replacing the M4 with, heavier.
The ammo that rifle shoots, also heavier.
Water, a major weight a soldier carry’s isn’t getting any lighter either.

So what you are missing is that building a force that depends on what might happen in terms of gear getting lighter is a bad idea.
What happens if what normally happens with plans like this comes to pass and female soldiers can’t carry the weight.

I'm not really advocating for one thing over the other, other than testing needs to reflect battlefield realities to ensure the safety of the soldier, whatever their gender. The lightening of my appears to be a constant goal, not to mention a logical and common sense one. If you say its not happening I'll take it at face value for the sake of this conversation, despite the numerous sources speaking to the contrary.

I am curious, though, and hopefully you'll lend me your experience to answer this question... how many of the women currently enlisted are unable to carry the weight of their gear, and what happens if / when that's the case? How would you describe current state?

 

[braindrain]

Sorry, i don't find this post enlightening or convincing. Perhaps you have some clear evidence to counter the articles I provided? Or maybe some specific examples I'd what I'm missing, that go a little deeper than "everything"?

Just not a lot to with with here, bud.

I mean just look at your first article from 2013. Talking about a new light weight helmet and new light weight batteries. Here were are over a decade later and we are still using the same helmet and the same batteries. Except for so new rechargeable batteries we have but those are actually heavier then the non rechargeable ones.

The article is talking about an exoskeleton. The Army has been working on that for decades. Guess how many have been fielded.


Like a lot of articles of that type they are great on promises and what could happen but rarely connected to what actually happens.

 

[braindrain]

I'm not really advocating for one thing over the other, other than testing needs to reflect battlefield realities to ensure the safety of the soldier, whatever their gender. The lightening of my appears to be a constant goal, not to mention a logical and common sense one. If you say its not happening I'll take it at face value for the sake of this conversation, despite the numerous sources speaking to the contrary.

I am curious, though, and hopefully you'll lend me your experience to answer this question... how many of the women currently enlisted are unable to carry the weight of their gear, and what happens if / when that's the case? How would you describe current state?

Testing needs to reflect what a solder might have to do if everything goes to shit. Not just an average day. And frankly those new standards are way too easy.
But then the standards were greatly lowered for males when the army first tried its first gender neutral test.
I mean look at that standard. It’s not exactly challenging.


I have no idea how many idea how many women currently enlisted are unable to carry this weight as the vast majority of females in the army are not in combat arms MOSs and almost none are in my career field.

But from what I have seen happen in the past when a soldier can’t handle the job is in the short term everyone else has to carry extra weight to make up for the soldier who can’t. And in the long term that soldier is moved to a different job. Be it in staff or reclass to a different mos. Which means at least till a replacement arrives everyone just has to do extra work.

 

[OlNate]

Testing needs to reflect what a solder might have to do if everything goes to shit. Not just an average day. And frankly those new standards are way too easy.
But then the standards were greatly lowered for males when the army first tried its first gender neutral test.
I mean look at that standard. It’s not exactly challenging.


I have no idea how many idea how many women currently enlisted are unable to carry this weight as the vast majority of females in the army are not in combat arms MOSs and almost none are in my career field.

But from what I have seen happen in the past when a soldier can’t handle the job is in the short term everyone else has to carry extra weight to make up for the soldier who can’t. And in the long term that soldier is moved to a different job. Be it in staff or reclass to a different mos. Which means at least till a replacement arrives everyone just has to do extra work.

OK, well, thanks for your perspective.

Given the lack of data, I can't really say it answered the question - not your fault, nobody knows everything - but anecdotal information isn't without value. I'll see what chatgpt can slap together, to see if I can find some of the statistics I was hoping for.

I guess I'm left where I started: all military personnel should be able to perform at a level that ensures the highest likelihood of them returning home.

And if the US Military hasn't achieved lighter kit, at least they appear to have that as a goal, as widening the window of eligibility is a good thing, especially in a country that lives to fight as much as you guys seem to... hehe Plus I'm sure even the big dudes would appreciate an easier day.

 

[Rich2018]

Do you have any idea how many times I have heard stories like this in my almost 20 year career. Literally dozens. And guess what my ruck weighs more now then it did when I got in.

That would be an issue regarding your ability to manage your needs.

And we have just recently got issued new radios. Both inter-team and manpac radios. Both heavier then the ones they replace.

So signalers need to compensate by carrying less gear.

The new rifle the Army is replacing the M4 with, heavier.
The ammo that rifle shoots, also heavier.

So riflemen carry less ammunition to compensate.

Water, a major weight a soldier carry’s isn’t getting any lighter either.

So what ?
Are you required to carry more or something ?

So what you are missing is that building a force that depends on what might happen in terms of gear getting lighter is a bad idea.
What happens if what normally happens with plans like this comes to pass and female soldiers can’t carry the weight.

Soldiers (male or female), should not be in a position where they are required to carry more weight than they can manage
Indeed, even for the "stronger" soldiers, carrying a heavy load will just result in long term spinal injuries. This is an issue for logistics.

 

[RF667799]

That would be an issue regarding your ability to manage your needs.



So signalers need to compensate by carrying less gear.



So riflemen carry less ammunition to compensate.



So what ?
Are you required to carry more or something ?




Soldiers (male or female), should not be in a position where they are required to carry more weight than they can manage
Indeed, even for the "stronger" soldiers, carrying a heavy load will just result in long term spinal injuries. This is an issue for logistics.

Yes, they should certainly get in touch with their union representative if they're being forced to carry all that unnecessary weight. It's nobody's business but their own how much weight they choose to carry.

 

[braindrain]

That would be an issue regarding your ability to manage your needs.



So signalers need to compensate by carrying less gear.



So riflemen carry less ammunition to compensate.



So what ?
Are you required to carry more or something ?




Soldiers (male or female), should not be in a position where they are required to carry more weight than they can manage
Indeed, even for the "stronger" soldiers, carrying a heavy load will just result in long term spinal injuries. This is an issue for logistics.

Again rich proves he has no idea what he is talking about.
I wonder if anyone didn’t see that coming.

 

[RF667799]

Again rich proves he has no idea what he is talking about.
I wonder if anyone didn’t see that coming.

The British Army might be vastly different than any I'm aware of. They're an English speaking army that apparently doesn't use the phonetic alphabet, for one thing.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Wait. So in our military there are different standards regarding fitness and such for different jobs? Like someone who sits in a silo and controls drones shouldn't have to be in as good a shape?

No, they should be in as good shape. They're Soldiers and as Soldiers they need to be held to the same level of fitness.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

This article is from 2013. One would assume there is no less desire to lessen field gear weight.

https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/91655-new-materials-allow-soldiers-to-shed-weight#:~:text=One%2Dpiece%20aluminum%20forgings%20also,highly%20operator%20independent%20and%20repeatable.%E2%80%9D

From 2017...continuing trend.

Personal Protective Equipment: Army and Marine Corps Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce the Weight of Items Worn or Carried in Combat

What GAO Found The Army and Marine Corps have developed requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) to address operational threats in ground...

www.gao.gov

And finally, this, from this year:

The Army wants to get the load soldiers carry down to 55 pounds

The Army wants to cut down on redundant and excess equipment that its soldiers carry into battle, hoping that none carry more than 55 pounds.

taskandpurpose.com

Looks like the goal is 55 pounds, which should broaden the eligibility of people who would be able to perform this service, for both men and women. A 10 mile walk carrying 55 pounds is a bit of a different proposition than 200 pounds, wouldn't you say?

Sooo...if kit carrying requirements are being greatly lowered via weight reductions, I would imagine that hand to hand combat is about the only thing left that does have a "damned thing to do with it"... hehe...

What am I missing?

They're looking into lowering the weight Soldiers carry. However, I doubt if that is actually going to happen as the Army is gonna Army. If you're in a combat arms job, you all need to be held to the same level of fitness. (IMO, the PT test should be gender neutral for all MOSs, but hey)

 

[Mr. Invisible]

That would be an issue regarding your ability to manage your needs.



So signalers need to compensate by carrying less gear.



So riflemen carry less ammunition to compensate.



So what ?
Are you required to carry more or something ?




Soldiers (male or female), should not be in a position where they are required to carry more weight than they can manage
Indeed, even for the "stronger" soldiers, carrying a heavy load will just result in long term spinal injuries. This is an issue for logistics.

So when I'm given a packing list and it's 45 lbs, I just need to simply better "manage [my] needs" so that I carry less weight? Great idea man, why didn't I think of that?

 

[Questerr]

I don’t really think having a lower physical standard creates a better military. But hey you are entitled to your opinion.

But can you explain why you think a female doing a very physically demanding job should be held to a lower standard then men.

Do you think the rucksacks get lighter if you are female. Do you think the distances you have to patrol are shorter when you are a female.

Why should there be different standards based on age? Do rucksacks get lighter as you get older?

 

[braindrain]

Why should there be different standards based on age? Do rucksacks get lighter as you get older?

Why do you think I think there should be.

Because I haven’t said anything remotely supporting that idea.

But I get that strawman arguments is your normal fallback when you have no real argument.

And I can’t help but notice that the best you could do is answer my questions with a strawman question you pulled out of your backside.

 

[Questerr]

Why do you think I think there should be.

Because I haven’t said anything remotely supporting that idea.

But I get that strawman arguments is your normal fallback when you have no real argument.

And I can’t help but notice that the best you could do is answer my questions with a strawman question you pulled out of your backside.

So you don’t know that there are different standards based on age and that those go back decades, long before inclusion of females into combat arms?

 

[braindrain]

So you don’t know that there are different standards based on age and that those go back decades, long before inclusion of females into combat arms?

Another strawman from you while lacking the courage to answer my questions.

Why are you so scared to answer the questions.
And just as importantly why do you think making up lies is a winning argument.

 

[Questerr]

Another strawman from you while lacking the courage to answer my questions.

Why are you so scared to answer the questions.
And just as importantly why do you think making up lies is a winning argument.

There are no questions in your post. Not a single question mark to be found.

 

[braindrain]

There are no questions in your post. Not a single question mark to be found.

Even for you that is rather pathetic.

Bit good job proving my earlier point

 

[Questerr]

Even for you that is rather pathetic.

Bit good job proving my earlier point

Still no questions from you. Do you not know what a question mark is?

 

[Rich2018]

Again rich proves he has no idea what he is talking about.
I wonder if anyone didn’t see that coming.

And you quickly revert to type

When you're comprehensively out-argued, resort to slander/abuse:

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates.