Army Female recruits can't pass the physical

#151
#151
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes he was. He wrote a written protest to Gen Barton when he wasn’t allowed to go ashore with the division. He was in division command not battalion. You might be saying he wasn’t in assigned command of the battalion but he was most definitely leading. He was knocked out in combat I believe (I looked it up no he wasn’t knocked out my bad) and got the MOH for his actions on D Day.

And yes I know he is an exception to the rule. But from hearing my dad talk about him they greatly admired him.
Click to expand...

The reality is officers generally stop leading troops after the rank of captain and move to field grade. There are exceptions but company commander is usually the last time an officer leads troops.
 
#153
#153
Sea Ray said:
Since we agree the physical capabilities of men and women are not equal why should be be surprised that the "outcomes" in areas like the Army, the NBA and NFL aren't either? What's the problem here that you're trying to solve?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to solve anything, the military is solving it by reverting back to the standards that account for the differences in the physical abilities of males and females.

Some people are feigning outrage over this "reduction" in standards, when it's not a reduction at all. It's the same common sense that gets us all lathered up over seeing a tranny dude try and compete with women in womens competition.
 
Last edited:
#155
#155
hog88 said:
The reality is officers generally stop leading troops after the rank of captain and move to field grade. There are exceptions but company commander is usually the last time an officer leads troops.
Click to expand...
I can agree to that. Another reason I bought up Roosevelt was his physical condition. No way he could have passed the yearly test he had arthritis. But to the point you made earlier the job of a battalion commander is different from a rifleman. Which is why the battalion cmdr has all of the staff college schooling too.
 
#156
#156
Septic said:
I'm not trying to solve anything, the military is solving it by reverting back to the standards that account for the differences in the physical abilities of males and females.

Some people are feigning outrage over this "reduction" in standards, when it's not a reduction at all. It's the same common sense that gets us all lathered up over seeing a tranny dude try and compete with women in womens competition.
Click to expand...

If the physical requirements of the job are the same, why should the physical standards not be the same too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SumSoonerChick
#158
#158
Septic said:
20% of MOS's are combat arms. The APFT applies to 100% of the MOS's - if your intent was to be myopic in the real world application of APFT's and the impact they have on promotions etc, you succeeded.
Click to expand...
You do know that all MOSs have to be firearms qualified for reasons of engaging in combat don't you? Just because your MOS is typist doesn't exclude you from being in a combat situation. Happened in both Vietnam and Korea. Granted not often but it does happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#159
#159
Redleg68 said:
You do know that all MOSs have to be firearms qualified for reasons of engaging in combat don't you? Just because your MOS is typist doesn't exclude you from being in a combat situation. Happened in both Vietnam and Korea. Granted not often but it does happen.
Click to expand...

Thanks man.
 
#160
#160
hog88 said:
I think the new ACFT is much better suited for measuring the physical fitness levels for actual real world applications than the old one. There has always been PT bias, it used to be even a dirtbag that barely passed the pushups/sit-ups but could overmax the 2mile was considered a stud. Way too much emphasis was placed on the run, at least in the infantry.
Click to expand...

Hey, running may be very important for the new infantry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#161
#161
AM64 said:
Hey, running may be very important for the new infantry.
Click to expand...

I always thought it would be more practical and realistic for us in the infantry to do a 25 mile road march instead of the 2 mile run. 6 hour max time limit 75lbs of gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#163
#163
hog88 said:
I always thought it would be more practical and realistic for us in the infantry to do a 25 mile road march instead of the 2 mile run. 6 hour max time limit 75lbs of gear.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've been thinking about you comment on different levels for different MOS, and I agree there, too - but with a twist. The Army as opposed to corporations does need a basic level of fitness because the whole concept is different from the business world. There probably should be two fitness levels - a higher one for combat branches and a basic one that reflects the needs of other branches and MOS. For example, the educational requirements are quite different for the Medical Corps which are in turn different for the Signal or Corps of Engineers ... although a combat engineer would likely need to fall in line with infantry physical fitness. In industry those things are spelled out in the job description; in the Army they should be spelled out in the MOS.

Due to a twist of fate, I wound up with an 11B10 and then a 23S20 (Hawk Radar repair - Ordnance Corps). The skills and physical attributes I needed as an 11B10 were a lot different from the 23S20 - I didn't carry a rifle for two years, but I did spend a lot of time staring down schematics and block diagrams, and my weapons were more a soldering iron and screwdriver. However, that didn't mean that if push came to shove I wouldn't need to march and shoot. I'll draw an example using my dad - he was north or Pyongyang controlling air strikes by radar when the Chinese crossed the Yalu. They did manage enough ground transportation for staff but the radar and control systems had to be destroyed in place. With a little less fortune, he would have been a fighter pilot turned infantry officer. Even at that he enlisted in 1939 or 40 as a cavalry trooper (horse mounted) in the KS NG, so he wouldn't have been at a complete loss on the ground with a rifle - cross training can be important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#164
#164
Redleg68 said:
You do know that all MOSs have to be firearms qualified for reasons of engaging in combat don't you? Just because your MOS is typist doesn't exclude you from being in a combat situation. Happened in both Vietnam and Korea. Granted not often but it does happen.
Click to expand...
Dude, he was a DFAC cook. He knows how much water to add to powdered eggs, thats about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaybird_1981
#165
#165
hog88 said:
I always thought it would be more practical and realistic for us in the infantry to do a 25 mile road march instead of the 2 mile run. 6 hour max time limit 75lbs of gear.
Click to expand...
The run is only realistic for the Air Force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#168
#168
Grand Vol said:
They're all feral.

Most aren't potty trained either.
Click to expand...

Sgt Major for 3/187 back in 92 or 93 during a brigade NCO meeting said the Army should take the kids from single female soldiers, lock them in cages and poke them with sticks until they turn 16 then put them in the Army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#169
#169
hog88 said:
Sgt Major for 3/187 back in 92 or 93 during a brigade NCO meeting said the Army should take the kids from single female soldiers, lock them in cages and poke them with sticks until they turn 16 then put them in the Army.
Click to expand...

I would make a comment, but I can't.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top