• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Army is rolling out a new fitness test: Will it hold back women?

Bum

Worldly wandering wastrel
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
6,979
Reaction score
5,250
Location
Knee deep in garden dirt
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I stand corrected, thank you for your service, but the Burger-king in Bagram was awesome! I went on to Tillman.
Chow hall in Bagram had cold near-beer for breakfast, non-alcohol beer,
The only time I spent in Bagram was at Camp Vance; I retired in 2008 and spent the next 12 years as a military advisor in Afghanistan under the DoD.......I was at Camp Stone, Herat, Camp Spann, Maz I Sharif, Phoenix, Leatherneck, Alamo, Spin Boldak, Walton, Eggers, Black Horse, Kandahar, Camp Leslie, and Julien.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
21,389
Reaction score
6,741
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

“Recent Army figures show that 54% of female soldiers failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is being rolled out on a provisional basis, compared with 7% of men during the second quarter of 2020.“

Only reason for women in the Army is as cooks. No heavy lifting and running required. (Or pooping in ammo cans with 8 guys watching)

They want equality, earn it.

But they won’t, standards will be lowered even though that will undermine the Army's mission.
Yes...this is going to be an issue. I've taken the ACFT 5 times now. It's much more difficult for women and smaller guys than the old test, for some of the events. As a bigger guy, I love it, because we've had no events to measure actual power until now, so if you were tiny you could kill it but not be much useful beyond your own body weight.

That said, your comment about women only being in the Army as cooks is trash. I have plenty of women in my MOS that kick my ass on our CTLs. There are many jobs in the Army, and military in general, that require brains and other things that are not just brute strength.

This doesn't mean I don't think the new test is any good. Again, I like it more than the old one. I just think that the one event that's causing the most failures (leg tuck), isn't particularly a good exercise, imo.

Here is a video of the event.
 

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The only time I spent in Bagram was at Camp Vance; I retired in 2008 and spent the next 12 years as a military advisor in Afghanistan under the DoD.......I was at Camp Stone, Herat, Camp Spann, Maz I Sharif, Phoenix, Leatherneck, Alamo, Spin Boldak, Walton, Eggers, Black Horse, Kandahar, Camp Leslie, and Julien.
I hope you have found a home, I still have a problem of staying in one place to long. As a military brat and military service, I feel the need to relocate ever couple years.
Wife hates it.

Hmmm, can I file for PTSD due to that?
 

Bum

Worldly wandering wastrel
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
6,979
Reaction score
5,250
Location
Knee deep in garden dirt
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I hope you have found a home, I still have a problem of staying in one place to long. As a military brat and military service, I feel the need to relocate ever couple years.
Wife hates it.

Hmmm, can I file for PTSD due to that?
I returned to the states last December.......check with your local VA
 

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes...this is going to be an issue. I've taken the ACFT 5 times now. It's much more difficult for women and smaller guys than the old test, for some of the events. As a bigger guy, I love it, because we've had no events to measure actual power until now, so if you were tiny you could kill it but not be much useful beyond your own body weight.

That said, your comment about women only being in the Army as cooks is trash. I have plenty of women in my MOS that kick my ass on our CTLs. There are many jobs in the Army, and military in general, that require brains and other things that are not just brute strength.

This doesn't mean I don't think the new test is any good. Again, I like it more than the old one. I just think that the one event that's causing the most failures (leg tuck), isn't particularly a good exercise, imo.

Here is a video of the event.
I’m 65 yrs old and I can do that, Long humps with 100lbs weight , knees say NOPE!
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The effects and motives of this are significant:

1. It means it has been accepted that the Army will play no role in the technological side of the military. "Keep it simple, dummy" will define the future of the Army.
2. Women have no place in any role in the Army and it is too risky to even attempt a career in the Army because you will be double crossed.
3. It has been decided that the military will never deploy a large Army ground force again and will be incapable of doing so - deliberately.
4. Reduce public support of the military - making it easier to cut military budgets and benefits.
5. Eliminate the number of career men and eliminate hang-on dead weight men hanging on only to make retirement. This is a very real cost problem.
6. Force full time Army into the reserves.

Misogyny is on the increase in the military as men feel increasingly threatened - but is this their last desperate gasp?
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
71,661
Reaction score
13,104
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Links like I provided to prove your statement?

women’s only job in the Army should be cooks in chow hall.

When they compete with men, they loose.

Not to mention how they disrupt a rifle team, because they have a vigina, which all members of the rifle team want.
Your (Snicker) opinion is noted.

And most men can spell vagina.
 

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The effects and motives of this are significant:

1. It means it has been accepted that the Army will play no role in the technological side of the military. "Keep it simple, dummy" will define the future of the Army.
2. Women have no place in any role in the Army and it is too risky to even attempt a career in the Army because you will be double crossed.
3. It has been decided that the military will never deploy a large Army ground force again and will be incapable of doing so - deliberately.
4. Reduce public support of the military - making it easier to cut military budgets and benefits.
5. Eliminate the number of career men and eliminate hang-on dead weight men hanging on only to make retirement. This is a very real cost problem.
6. Force full time Army into the reserves.

Misogyny is on the increase in the military as men feel increasingly threatened - but is this their last desperate gasp?
Men are not threatened, but the mission is.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
7,069
Reaction score
2,531
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

“Recent Army figures show that 54% of female soldiers failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is being rolled out on a provisional basis, compared with 7% of men during the second quarter of 2020.“

Only reason for women in the Army is as cooks. No heavy lifting and running required. (Or pooping in ammo cans with 8 guys watching)

They want equality, earn it.

But they won’t, standards will be lowered even though that will undermine the Army's mission.
Equal doesn't really mean equal does it?
 

Court Jester

Proud Systemic Paleocon Sardonist
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
3,124
Reaction score
1,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

“Recent Army figures show that 54% of female soldiers failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is being rolled out on a provisional basis, compared with 7% of men during the second quarter of 2020.“

Only reason for women in the Army is as cooks. No heavy lifting and running required. (Or pooping in ammo cans with 8 guys watching)

They want equality, earn it.

But they won’t, standards will be lowered even though that will undermine the Army's mission.
If 'diversity hiring" meant making a better "team", then the NBA would be full of short Chinese guys too.

Problem with the current military is too many people are hired who couldn't otherwise get jobs anywhere else. I agree, women should not even be considered for combat rolls anyway. Especially based on the reality that many men can't even pass those tests.

Supply chain work, hospitals, rear echelon stuff.... who cares. But why even consider women for combat roles especially in Army infantry, Marine corps, or any combat roles?

Problem the Navy has had since integrating women into sea duty is that there ends up being a high percentage of them getting pregnant.... duh! Who couldn't have see that coming?
 

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your (Snicker) opinion is noted.

And most men can spell vagina.
Vigina, vagina, all the same to a 19 year old grunt. He just wants it. Willing to fight over it. Mission be damned, pu$$y is a higher priority.
One vagina with 9 men can compromise a mission easily.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The military is in a terrible budgetary crisis. Next generation military equipment is astronomically expensive. Personal costs are astronomically expensive. Our potential adversaries - particular China - has created a new arms race our military and government can not afford.

It clearly has been decided the future is in technology and next generation equipment, not in basic personnel. That is a wise decision - but this is not the way to reduce personnel. Rather, the military should more selectively remove dead weight and non-essential personnel on an individual basis.

This method of staff reduction risks the law of unintended consequences.

For example, many in the military are married to people in the military. If one is booted out, the other likely will get out - and have no motivation while still in. That is my daughter's situation. Her wife is deeply concerned about the upcoming PT, though her tasks require no strength. If she goes out, my daughter goes out. Her team would follow as they are codependent as a geek team. With this, however billions worth of new gen whatever gathers dust as it is their baby. A team it took years to assemble can not be replaced overnight and do not expect them to train their replacements.

Making pursuing a military career fully unreliable will have far reaching consequences.

However, again, the military MUST reduce personnel count, particularly dead weight career military for the practice of the military having to create a basis to eliminate someone - at least in the Army. The size of the Army will be reduced. It must be for costs. The question is how - and this isn't the way.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Men are not threatened, but the mission is.
It is inevitable that China will surpass the USA militarily. China is superior in electronics, computers, software, virology, hacking and manufacturing capacity. Historically, the USA has always underrated Asians - and racism is at the core of that viewpoint.

The problem is not that our troops can't carry heavy enough packs. The USA would never tolerate the extreme measures many other militaries use to toughen their troops - where screwing up can get a soldier beaten to death. Wars will not be decided by infantry. They will be decided by technology.

What the theoretical war games showed is it is long overdue to stop listening to RAND and the military industrial complex. When has RAND been accurate about anything?
 
Last edited:

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The military is in a terrible budgetary crisis. Next generation military equipment is astronomically expensive. Personal costs are astronomically expensive. Our potential adversaries - particular China - has created a new arms race our military and government can not afford.

It clearly has been decided the future is in technology and next generation equipment, not in basic personnel. That is a wise decision - but this is not the way to reduce personnel. Rather, the military should more selectively remove dead weight and non-essential personnel on an individual basis.

This method of staff reduction risks the law of unintended consequences.

For example, many in the military are married to people in the military. If one is booted out, the other likely will get out - and have no motivation while still in. That is my daughter's situation. Her wife is deeply concerned about the upcoming PT, though her tasks require no strength. If she goes out, my daughter goes out. Her team would follow as they are codependent as a geek team. With this, however billions worth of new gen whatever gathers dust as it is their baby. A team it took years to assemble can not be replaced overnight and do not expect them to train their replacements.

Making pursuing a military career fully unreliable will have far reaching consequences.

However, again, the military MUST reduce personnel count, particularly dead weight career military for the practice of the military having to create a basis to eliminate someone - at least in the Army. The size of the Army will be reduced. It must be for costs. The question is how - and this isn't the way.
Females should not be in the Army period. Nothing but distractions for men in the Army.

Dead weight career military, mostly women. We agree, retire them.
 

Aberro

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
486
Location
Sunny south
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is inevitable that China will surpass the USA militarily. China is superior in electronics, computers, software, virology, hacking and manufacturing capacity. Historically, the USA has always underrated Asians - and racism is at the core of that viewpoint.

The problem is not that our troops can't carry heavy enough packs. The USA would never tolerate the extreme measures many other militaries use to toughen their troops - where screwing up can get a soldier beaten to death. Wars will not be decided by infantry. They will be decided by technology.
Nope, wars will be won by boots on the ground, nuff said.
Technology, hit it with a rock, it’s worthless.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope, wars will be won by boots on the ground, nuff said.
Technology, hit it with a rock, it’s worthless.
An ignorant message.

Technology kills from the other side of the planet. Boots on the ground are totally defenseless against technology nor has any means to attack technology.

ISIS was boots on the ground. The German and Japanese military was reduced to boots on the ground. How'd that work out for them? Shooting fish in a barrel.

Old military men are the greatest curse and handicap any military has.
 

Mashmont

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
14,708
Reaction score
1,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

“Recent Army figures show that 54% of female soldiers failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is being rolled out on a provisional basis, compared with 7% of men during the second quarter of 2020.“

Only reason for women in the Army is as cooks. No heavy lifting and running required. (Or pooping in ammo cans with 8 guys watching)

They want equality, earn it.

But they won’t, standards will be lowered even though that will undermine the Army's mission.
The left is in charge of the military now. Requirements will be dumbed down so as to be PC.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Females should not be in the Army period. Nothing but distractions for men in the Army.

Dead weight career military, mostly women. We agree, retire them.
At least you admit men in the Army lack discipline and self control.

Marines for ground duties. The Navy for the seas. The Air Force for the air. The Space Force (which should have been left with the AF) for Geo-Space.

The Army is like a boat - just a hole you throw money into.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Army's budget is going to be gutted. This is just diversionary red meat for pigheaded ex-military to take the bait. It is well understood the new arms race is an astronomically expensive technology race - and we're losing that race on one level - not on another.

The future of the military is as great as space and as small as a virus. just proved they could wipe out the USA in a biological attack if they wanted to - and infect enough of their surplus population to claim an accident or not them - enough to keep our so-called allies out of it.

One space based weapons array armed with nothing but a few tons of tungsten rods could obliterate any army and numerous cities - as could other weapons based offensive systems. Only nuclear weapons are banned from space - and numerous countries could violate that within a day if they wanted to.

The cost of new generation assets is astronomical. We can no longer afford to reduce unemployment by paying men to pick up litter and shine shoes in a military uniform.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
21,389
Reaction score
6,741
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The effects and motives of this are significant:

1. It means it has been accepted that the Army will play no role in the technological side of the military. "Keep it simple, dummy" will define the future of the Army.
2. Women have no place in any role in the Army and it is too risky to even attempt a career in the Army because you will be double crossed.
3. It has been decided that the military will never deploy a large Army ground force again and will be incapable of doing so - deliberately.
4. Reduce public support of the military - making it easier to cut military budgets and benefits.
5. Eliminate the number of career men and eliminate hang-on dead weight men hanging on only to make retirement. This is a very real cost problem.
6. Force full time Army into the reserves.

Misogyny is on the increase in the military as men feel increasingly threatened - but is this their last desperate gasp?
This has been in the works for a while. I don't think it's so much misogyny as the Army's attempt at updating things but not really knowing the full impact of it. So like, before the previous test was sexist, as it gave different standards to pass for a PT test as men had. Now, we don't do PT in the military to look good in a uniform. We do it as a measure to make sure we can "accomplish the mission", whatever that mission is. Now is 40-50 some pushups to pass on the old scale for men is what is needed to accomplish the mission or is it the 15 a female has to do? See the problem there?

Whatever PT test they implement is going to be a problem, one way or another, no way around that. However, losing a good chunk of the force, especially in the support units, is going to be a problem. I see there being changes to the test before it comes into effect.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Putin demonstrated the worthlessness of the Army for any large scale action in his response to Turkey threatening to send a large military force into Syria. His response? He would use tactical nuclear weapons.

Cancel one invasion.

The RAND study of the USA's ass getting kicked in war gams is BS crap only to justify wasting trillions more solely for profits to the military industrial complex.

The only way having the Army based upon pack mule measurements is if the Army is considered only viable for minor actions against 3rd world countries and various limited special ops and guard duties.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
29,851
Reaction score
6,863
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

“Recent Army figures show that 54% of female soldiers failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which is being rolled out on a provisional basis, compared with 7% of men during the second quarter of 2020.“

Only reason for women in the Army is as cooks. No heavy lifting and running required. (Or pooping in ammo cans with 8 guys watching)

They want equality, earn it.

But they won’t, standards will be lowered even though that will undermine the Army's mission.


Pavlichenko fought for about two and a half months during the Siege of Odessa, where she recorded 187 kills.[11] She was promoted to Senior Sergeant in August 1941, when she reached 100 confirmed kills. At age 25, she married a fellow sniper, Alexei Kitsenko.[6] Soon after the marriage, Kitsenko was mortally wounded by a mortar shell, and died from his injuries after a few days in the hospital.[8] When the Romanian Army gained control of Odessa on 15 October 1941, her unit was withdrawn by sea to Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula,[11] to fight in the Siege of Sevastopol.[9][7] There she trained other snipers, who killed over a hundred Axis soldiers during the battle.[7] In May 1942, newly promoted Lieutenant Pavlichenko was cited by the Southern Army Council for killing 257 Axis soldiers. Her total of confirmed kills during World War II was 309,[12][9] including 36 Axis snipers.“



Throughout the course of the war the regiment accumulated approximately 23,672 sorties in combat, including in the following battles:[7]

  • Battle of the Caucasus – 2,920 sorties
  • Kuban, Taman, Novorossiysk – 4,623 sorties
  • Crimean Offensive – 6,140 sorties
  • Belarus Offensive – 400 sorties
  • Poland Offensive – 5,421 sorties
  • German Offensive – 2,000 sorties
In total the regiment collectively accumulated 28,676 flight hours, dropped over 3,000 tons of bombs and over 26,000 incendiary shells, damaging or completely destroying 17 river crossings, nine railways, two railway stations, 26 warehouses, 12 fuel depots, 176 armored cars, 86 firing points, and 11 searchlights. In addition to bombings, the unit performed 155 supply drops of food and ammunition to Soviet forces.[7”

Always funny watching conservatives show how little they know about history.
 

joko104

On Vacation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
56,944
Reaction score
20,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This topic would be more suitable on the military board and likely would survive in interest longer there.
 
Top Bottom