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

[joko104]

Lyudmila Pavlichenko - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“
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after a few days in the hospital.[8] When the Romanian Army gained control of Odessa on 15 October 1941, her unit was withdrawn by sea to Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula,[11] to fight in the Siege of Sevastopol.[9][7] There she trained other snipers, who killed over a hundred Axis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.“

Night Witches - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“
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.

This is not a conservative versus liberal topic.

What was learned in Russia in WW2 is that women are superior at defending the home front, while men are superior at offense. It was also learned once a female unit went into the killing mode, they could not be turned off. It takes little thought to why women would be better at home defense while men superior at offense.

 

[Fishking]

I’m 65 yrs old and I can do that, Long humps with 100lbs weight , knees say NOPE!

Btw...the new test also doesn't have different scoring for age either, so it could be a problem for careerists who are broken a little bit from their service, so it goes beyond being only a problem for women.

 

[joko104]

Btw...the new test also doesn't have different scoring for age either, so it could be a problem for careerists who are broken a little bit from their service, so it goes beyond being only a problem for women.

Really?

I do believe focusing on women is just diversionary from the real goal of reducing the number of dead weight Army men hanging on just to make their 20 or 25. The Army - and maybe military in general - is being starved in budget by such men.

 

[Fishking]

Really?

I do believe focusing on women is just diversionary from the real goal of reducing the number of dead weight Army men hanging on just to make their 20 or 25. The Army - and maybe military in general - is being starved in budget by such men.

Hanging on until 20 or fulfilling their career and qualifying for benefits after giving up a large chunk of their life and physical and mental wellness to service?

 

[joko104]

Hanging on until 20 or fulfilling their career and qualifying for benefits after giving up a large chunk of their life and physical and mental wellness to service?

Put a pencil to the costs on that?

The military doesn't tend to lay off people who gain rank. Monetary savings is by cutting new enlistments more often. My kid in the military says a real problem is once many who get their 14 to 15 years is that then they have some staff position doing essentially nothing - just waiting out the last 5 years or so for retirement. 59% of DoD costs are personnel costs. That is not counting some costs in relation to ex-military that are counted as social services costs instead.

The private sector is well aware they can't just increasingly have more and more and more people in middle management jobs.

It can not continue that a person who reaches into the 10, 12, 15 years of tenure can't be laid off/put out unless they do something wrong. The military must not be the pure union shop of "no discharge without just cause." Give them an honorable discharges and whatever benefits they've earned. They can't just hang around for 4, 5, 6 years to make a lifetime retirement when in their age 30s.

 

[Tigerace117]

This is not a conservative versus liberal topic.

What was learned in Russia in WW2 is that women are superior at defending the home front, while men are superior at offense. It was also learned once a female unit went into the killing mode, they could not be turned off. It takes little thought to why women would be better at home defense while men superior at offense.

I don’t know about that. The folks going “hurr durr women belong in the kitchen” have pretty uniformly been conservatives.

As for your second claim.... do you have any credible evidence to support your claim that their “killing mode couldn’t be turned off”?

 

[holbritter]

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.

OMFG!

 

[Fishking]

Put a pencil to the costs on that?

The military doesn't tend to lay off people who gain rank. Monetary savings is by cutting new enlistments more often. My kid in the military says a real problem is once many who get their 14 to 15 years is that then they have some staff position doing essentially nothing - just waiting out the last 5 years or so for retirement. 59% of DoD costs are personnel costs. That is not counting some costs in relation to ex-military that are counted as social services costs instead.

The private sector is well aware they can't just increasingly have more and more and more people in middle management jobs.

It can not continue that a person who reaches into the 10, 12, 15 years of tenure can't be laid off/put out unless they do something wrong. The military must not be the pure union shop of "no discharge without just cause." Give them an honorable discharges and whatever benefits they've earned. They can't just hang around for 4, 5, 6 years to make a lifetime retirement when in their age 30s.

There isn't a growing glut of people at that point in their careers. There are a number of slots for them and once they fill up, they don't promote anymore. It's fairly static. Further, why would anyone join the military if they are going to be cut at the 15 year mark? That makes no sense. So far as staff jobs not doing anything, that's really dependent on what command you're at. Some are worked to the bone while others are not.

What point in career is your kid? Seems like it's early and based off of just a few experiences that may be true for some places but not for others. Either way, it's a dynamic that has to happen because otherwise you're not going to maintain manning due to no one joining a dead end career. I will also note that this is a government job and this type of thing isn't just relegated to the military when you're talking about government.

 

[joko104]

There isn't a growing glut of people at that point in their careers. There are a number of slots for them and once they fill up, they don't promote anymore. It's fairly static. Further, why would anyone join the military if they are going to be cut at the 15 year mark? That makes no sense. So far as staff jobs not doing anything, that's really dependent on what command you're at. Some are worked to the bone while others are not.

What point in career is your kid? Seems like it's early and based off of just a few experiences that may be true for some places but not for others. Either way, it's a dynamic that has to happen because otherwise you're not going to maintain manning due to no one joining a dead end career. I will also note that this is a government job and this type of thing isn't just relegated to the military when you're talking about government.

I can only repeat what I am told. From what I am told, I gather than the military tends to be like huge companies. They become bloated with middle management whose job is to make-work to justify their jobs in an inner circle of activity producing huge amounts of paperwork but accomplishing nothing but creating burdens on operations.

Do people take jobs in the private sector without a guarantee that they have 20 years employment unless they are fired for just cause? No, of course not.

Most people have little educational or experience resumes when they join. Many could only best hope for a job in the food service industry. The military gives them what no company does: Free college. Housing. Food. Free full medical care for the entire family. Very generous time off. Travel the world at government expense. All benefits not 1 in 100 could obtain in the private sector. The average cost of active duty military for personnel costs is now about a quarter of a million dollars a year. To some degree, the military will be paying for that person until the person dies, even if they only serve 4 or 6 years. Many more ordinary young people attempt to join than the military possibly needs.

If that is not enough, if a person wants to just coast the second half of a military career don't enlist. If a person becomes not needed - get rid of that person exactly as the private sector does. If a person wants a full military career, they should have to continue to work their ass off no different than a new recruit - if not more. The notion that a person gains enough rank so they reach a point where "they served their time" and have lower rankers do all the work while they coast is not a deal the military should make nor allow. If a person doesn't like that having to continue to prove their worth the entire time they are in, don't sign up. There are plenty of others who will.

Personnel costs are 59% of the military budget - and that does not count many ex-military costs. The real final total costs is likely closer to 70%. No company could survive this. Employee costs average 20% to 30% of company expenses. The military can not bear such employee costs as it increasingly does.

Probably everyone in the military has their gripes. So does my kid. But the pay and benefits aren't among those and she is not planning on going career. Rather it is the massive middle management mob of do-nothings but get in the way and waste time of those who actually are productive and on a missions level. While she has advanced beyond such concerns causing her problems, she sees it as a weakness of the military, not an asset.

 

[dcsports]

women are not as physically strong as men so these results are expected

I hope the tests arent rolled back like NYPD

Part of the reason that tests like pull ups and sit ups are used is that they are somewhat self adjusting. A 100 pound woman doesn't have to pull up as much weight as a 180 pound man. Everyone runs with their own body weight. Now there is different distribution, but these are also minimums. It's more a matter of conditioning and preparation than brute strength.

I do wonder about the statement with the female sergeant that couldn't do a single pull-up 'despite years of conditioning'. There is good reason to have some amount of upper body strength. How does she pull herself into a helicopter, over a wall, out of a tank, etc. There needs to be a baseline amount of strength to take care of yourself in a military environment.

 

[Logophile]

Government is so full of stupidity. The military is a great way into a ridiculously excessive salary and homage not due. We have a boatload of military that have skated their way into intelligence jobs that bring down a minimum of 200,000 a year, but haven't done much in the way of alleviating the meager taxpayer, because that poor American is still treated like a piece of sh**t trying to make a flight with searches and shoes off and every other last demeaning demand including "blurred" naked photos. So, my guess is, these military sweethearts are doing a very lousy job. But they are stacked up in Washington like a bunch of red ants, ready to do battle with anybody that thinks that maybe, there's just too many of them?? Oh and by the way, regarding women in the military. If she can cut the same mustard as a man, fine. Very proud and I'm all for it. No can do?? No on the ground combat. Because hauling the wounded outathere is a big deal. Anything else, including fighter pilots, she's got my support. I'm just seriously tired of the politically correct. Thanks!!

 

[Deuce]

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

An Army initiative to create a stronger, fitter fighting force has yielded a dramatic gender gap, raising questions about whether the service unintentionally might compound barriers for women trying to move up the ranks.

www.stripes.com

“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.

Nobody cares what misogynists think. Yawn.

 

[beerftw]

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.

It is mazer-e-sharif, or mazer-i-sharif, or mezer-e-sheref, screw it even the locals could not decide on whatmit was, just cal that post in afghanistan camp marmal like the germans named it.

 

[beerftw]

Truthfully I am surprised they are going through with it, first I heard of it was 2009 or early 2010, but it was different then, it was planned a 1 mile run focusing more on endurance than speed, as well as a dead man carry of a 200 pound dummy, them carrying two 50 poind ammo cans in a dead sprint, and a bunch of other things. They made it sound like it was going to happen any time, however I left active duty at the end of 2011 and the national guard at the end of 2015, the new test was still not in p;lace.

Now I see the core idea of the 6 events is in place, but they changed the events greatly over what was proposed about a decade ago.

 

[dcsports]

Put a pencil to the costs on that?

The military doesn't tend to lay off people who gain rank. Monetary savings is by cutting new enlistments more often. My kid in the military says a real problem is once many who get their 14 to 15 years is that then they have some staff position doing essentially nothing - just waiting out the last 5 years or so for retirement. 59% of DoD costs are personnel costs. That is not counting some costs in relation to ex-military that are counted as social services costs instead.

The private sector is well aware they can't just increasingly have more and more and more people in middle management jobs.

It can not continue that a person who reaches into the 10, 12, 15 years of tenure can't be laid off/put out unless they do something wrong. The military must not be the pure union shop of "no discharge without just cause." Give them an honorable discharges and whatever benefits they've earned. They can't just hang around for 4, 5, 6 years to make a lifetime retirement when in their age 30s.

'Kids' (really young men and women) will have many of those comments in any industry. Some will have said the same thing about your job, whatever that is. It's the nature of things. Most will gain wisdom with age.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Not to mention how they disrupt a rifle team, because they have a vigina, which all members of the rifle team want.

Something you're not familiar with I presume.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Part of the reason that tests like pull ups and sit ups are used is that they are somewhat self adjusting. A 100 pound woman doesn't have to pull up as much weight as a 180 pound man. Everyone runs with their own body weight. Now there is different distribution, but these are also minimums. It's more a matter of conditioning and preparation than brute strength.

I do wonder about the statement with the female sergeant that couldn't do a single pull-up 'despite years of conditioning'. There is good reason to have some amount of upper body strength. How does she pull herself into a helicopter, over a wall, out of a tank, etc. There needs to be a baseline amount of strength to take care of yourself in a military environment.

ok..

 

[OrphanSlug]

The military was always the wrong place for political correctness and multiple standards.

With how frequently and often our politicians use our military to go fight around the globe I’d sleep better if I knew the best, most able, and more trained to standards were there and ready to go.

If we need a physical standard that excludes the majority of women from this duty then so be it.

This is not a band or for show, this is our fighting force and the branches of our military needs to be looked at for what they really are. Not a place for the PC police to generate weakness.

(Appreciate who this is coming from.)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I had a several females on my trauma team; you wouldn't stand a chance against them.....any female that can haul a critically wounded tanker twice her size out of the loaders hatch of an M1 in full battle rattle would break you in half with a look.

Lol ok guy whatever.

 

[apdst]

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

An Army initiative to create a stronger, fitter fighting force has yielded a dramatic gender gap, raising questions about whether the service unintentionally might compound barriers for women trying to move up the ranks.

www.stripes.com

“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 were lowered decades ago. If women aren't meeting the already lower standards, there's a problem with training.

 

[apdst]

One Marine Gunny I knew could probably disassemble you.

A couple of our Woman Marines tried the male PFT. Both passed with flying colors. Others tried and struggled. Not one that tried failed.

As long as they can hack it they are Marines.

I had a several females on my trauma team; you wouldn't stand a chance against them.....any female that can haul a critically wounded tanker twice her size out of the loaders hatch of an M1 in full battle rattle would break you in half with a look.

One Marine Gunny I knew could probably disassemble you.

A couple of our Woman Marines tried the male PFT. Both passed with flying colors. Others tried and struggled. Not one that tried failed.

As long as they can hack it they are Marines.

When I attended the small arms repair course at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, there were female soldiers and WM's there that couldn't even carry their own 30 pound tool box. The females you're describing are the exception, not the norm.

 

[Fledermaus]

When I attended the small arms repair course at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, there were female soldiers and WM's there that couldn't even carry their own 30 pound tool box. The females you're describing are the exception, not the norm.

The Marines I mentioned....

Marines tend to be above the norm.

 

[apdst]

The Marines I mentioned....

Marines tend to be above the norm.

Uh, yeah...ok...lol

I've served with Marines. They're no better, nor worse than anyone else.

 

[Fledermaus]

Uh, yeah...ok...lol
And
I've served with Marines. They're no better, nor worse than anyone else.

That's your story.

Tell it any way you want.

 

[apdst]

That's your story.

Tell it any way you want.

You know how to knock out a Marine? Through sand against the wall and tell him to hit the beach...lol!