Army Fitness Assessment Change by 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Cross country / mixed terrain", in physical training terms, specifically means across open natural terrain off roads, tracks and paths.
So unless the camp is situated next to a training area (which a hell of a lot weren't/aren't) what you are actually talking about is mostly private land.

In 4 separate decades of service, I have never seen a unit conducting a CFT/AFT trotting across fields in merry ranks unless

a. It was a public right of way, which means it is well trodden (an of road path if you like)

or

b. They where lost

But I expect in John G land it happened all the time ^~
 
Before computers, John G must have had the largest microfiche collection in the world.

(Anyone under 40, don't even try thinking about what that means).
 
... you know as well as I do it was just a change in terminology, a bit like Fat soldiers isn't used in documentation now days.
I "know" it wasn't, while you are simply assuming it was.

I "know " it was a change to try to reduce lower limb stress injuries by reducing / controlling the amount of time on tarmac roads / metalled surfaces.

If you don't "know" that and you are simply assuming it you need to ask the School of Physical Training rather than just use your uninformed imagination.

The reasons for the changes were detailed to all PTIs and Unit Fitness Officers on courses at ASPT when and after the changes were made.

Did you attend either course at that time, or soon after?

To save you asking, I attended PT Management (UFO) Cse no 31, Nov '87.

... and the term "Fat soldiers" was never used in "documentation". Pamphlets, yes; reports, possibly; documentation, no.

You also know as well as I do, routes around camps and garrisons have remained pretty much the same for decades.
Yes I do, in most cases, which is why I described the changes as "minimal".

"pretty much the same" is not 'the same'.

You could give an example of routes that changed when the terminology changed if you like,
I could. The routes in Colchester when the changes were made in 1981 and the routes for JIB (S) and DQD when changes were made in 1986. JIB(S) and DQD, as trg establishments, were required to follow the requirements rather more closely than field units. Both had courses that had involved considerably more roadwork (or, in the case of DQD, airfield work) which had to be completely re-routed to ensure the changes were followed.

The main change was in 1986 to try to reduce stress injuries on roads (and metalled surfaces, including airfields).

or better still point me to the document that specifies the definition of cross country ( for the specific purpose of the old CFT) such as things like farmers fields, ploughed land, meadow or even hills, size and gradient. But I doubt you will be able to.
Definitions of 'cross country' for any and all fitness training and testing purposes are readily available. They are / were kept deliberately broad for the CFT for the very obvious reason that terrain varies depending on area which was why any specific references to gradients, etc, was avoided.

In no such case I am aware of does 'cross country' simply mean "off tarmac / metalled road" except, again, in your uninformed imagination.

If, of course, you have any such definition, from anywhere, anywhere at all, I would be happy to see it and stand corrected but I doubt you will be able to (OK, I know you won't).

you could just admit that cross country meant public highways & byways that where not metalled road such as farmers tracks, public bridleways and footpaths.
I could, but since I "know" that's not the case it would be a lie, and would indicate that I was making the same uninformed, baseless assumptions you have done.

So ... what you are actually talking about is mostly private land.
You seem to have somehow forgotten about public land, where most CFTs / AFTs take place if not on training areas.
 
I "know" it wasn't, while you are simply assuming it was.

I "know " it was a change to try to reduce lower limb stress injuries by reducing / controlling the amount of time on tarmac roads / metalled surfaces.

If you don't "know" that and you are simply assuming it you need to ask the School of Physical Training rather than just use your uninformed imagination.

The reasons for the changes were detailed to all PTIs and Unit Fitness Officers on courses at ASPT when and after the changes were made.

Did you attend either course at that time, or soon after?

To save you asking, I attended PT Management (UFO) Cse no 31, Nov '87.

... and the term "Fat soldiers" was never used in "documentation". Pamphlets, yes; reports, possibly; documentation, no.



Yes I do, in most cases, which is why I described the changes as "minimal".

"pretty much the same" is not 'the same'.



I could. The routes in Colchester when the changes were made in 1981 and the routes for JIB (S) and DQD when changes were made in 1986. JIB(S) and DQD, as trg establishments, were required to follow the requirements rather more closely than field units. Both had courses that had involved considerably more roadwork (or, in the case of DQD, airfield work) which had to be completely re-routed to ensure the changes were followed.

The main change was in 1986 to try to reduce stress injuries on roads (and metalled surfaces, including airfields).



Definitions of 'cross country' for any and all fitness training and testing purposes are readily available. They are / were kept deliberately broad for the CFT for the very obvious reason that terrain varies depending on area which was why any specific references to gradients, etc, was avoided.

In no such case I am aware of does 'cross country' simply mean "off tarmac / metalled road" except, again, in your uninformed imagination.

If, of course, you have any such definition, from anywhere, anywhere at all, I would be happy to see it and stand corrected but I doubt you will be able to (OK, I know you won't).



I could, but since I "know" that's not the case it would be a lie, and would indicate that I was making the same uninformed, baseless assumptions you have done.



You seem to have somehow forgotten about public land, where most CFTs / AFTs take place if not on training areas.
As usual so many words and predictably as usual so little substance, but then again I only have myself to blame for engaging with the old fool :)
 
What the f*ck is a pamphlet if it isn't documentation ^~
A pamphlet. Hence "pamphlets, yes".

"Documentation"
refers to something that is documented, as in 'entered in personal docs' / 'the following documentation is required' / 'medical docs'... etc.

If you can't understand the difference between a pamphlet / aide-memoire and documentation it is little wonder you can't understand the difference between 'off roads / metalled surfaces' and 'cross country'.

As usual so many years service and predictably as usual so little knowledge of the absolute basics and so little learnt.
 
A pamphlet. Hence "pamphlets, yes".

"Documentation"
refers to something that is documented, as in 'entered in personal docs' / 'the following documentation is required' / 'medical docs'... etc.

If you can't understand the difference between a pamphlet / aide-memoire and documentation it is little wonder you can't understand the difference between 'off roads / metalled surfaces' and 'cross country'.

As usual so many years service and predictably as usual so little knowledge of the absolute basics and so little learnt.
You really are f*cking thick :)
 
You really are f*cking thick :)
I think you're demonstrating your own limitations rather well.

You've clearly nothing constructive to say, and a truly stunning lack of very basic military knowledge given your experience.

Best back on ignore, along with the broken record.
 
Best back on ignore, along with the broken record.
Promises, promises, please please do, as always when you are caught out spouting sh*t :)

But before you go, maybe you would like to post the dictionary definition of documentation and explain how an official army publication isn't a document, hence not documentation ^~
 
The Sunday Times has a story today, admittedly mainly focused on the decision expected to be announced this summer of women being allowed into the Infantry and RAC, but which includes some interesting statements of a wholesale change to fitness tests in the Army.

In what could be a "trail" before official announcements:
- Potential for the CFT change/removal
- PFA change

All by 2019 if the article is to be believed.

I know there have been some studies in the PFA mapping across to the jerry can carry and power bag lifting for "functional fitness tests".

Has anyone got any actual Gen on if a new PFA/CFT is being looked at and what it might contain? Will it be another set of tests that can be run just with a stopwatch and a known distance?

NB - if we can keep this thread on topic about new fitness test criteria rather than having it descend into yet another "women in combat" thread, that'd be grand.
The new fitness tests can be found within this post; Physical Training: New British Army Physical Training Programme
 
Stage 1: – TAB: cover a total distance of 4km at 4.8km/hr (2.98mph a slow walk in a total time of 50min). Dress – webbing 9.5kg, weapon 4.5kg, bergan 26kg – total loaf 40kg.

40kg loaf? obvioulsy not gluten free.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
Is that being done as a squad or individual?
 
Posted a while ago and discussed at considerable length here.

Thanks for reminding me of this classic, though:

"In 4 separate decades of service, I have never seen a unit conducting a CFT/AFT trotting across fields in merry ranks unless

a. It was a public right of way, which means it is well trodden (an of road path if you like)

or

b. They where lost."
 
Last edited:
Stage 1: – TAB: cover a total distance of 4km at 4.8km/hr (2.98mph a slow walk in a total time of 50min). Dress – webbing 9.5kg, weapon 4.5kg, bergan 26kg – total loaf 40kg.

40kg loaf? obvioulsy not gluten free.
dan_brown

Virtus webbing will fail to take 21lbs in the belt kit, the yolk will fail at that weight. In addition, the bergan will not sit on top of any rear pouches which you would need to pack to make the 21lbs, to get 21lbs in the belt kit and fit a bergan means it would sit over the top of the rear pouches, which will lead to horrendous tabbing kit for those using Virtus. Which means almost all less those that still hold onto their PLCE.


Also, 88lbs bugger me why are we constantly upping the weight?

Combat Fitness Test (CFT) 8 miles in less than 2 hours, in 1989 correct me if I am wrong.

Webbing 35 lbs (58 pattern webbing / PLCE).
Combat helmet Mk6 7lbs size large (worn by the soldier).
SA80 (A1) 9lbs.
Water bottle 2lbs (not part of the weight).

Total 53lbs

I guess its due to recent operations making us mules with all the kit. Every man wore about 120lbs which we could not reduce, the main problem was the ECM and x4 body armour plates.
 
dan_brown

Virtus webbing will fail to take 21lbs in the belt kit, the yolk will fail at that weight. In addition, the bergan will not sit on top of any rear pouches which you would need to pack to make the 21lbs, to get 21lbs in the belt kit and fit a bergan means it would sit over the top of the rear pouches, which will lead to horrendous tabbing kit for those using Virtus. Which means almost all less those that still hold onto their PLCE.


Also, 88lbs bugger me why are we constantly upping the weight?

Combat Fitness Test (CFT) 8 miles in less than 2 hours, in 1989 correct me if I am wrong.

Webbing 35 lbs (58 pattern webbing / PLCE).
Combat helmet Mk6 7lbs size large (worn by the soldier).
SA80 (A1) 9lbs.
Water bottle 2lbs (not part of the weight).

Total 53lbs

I guess its due to recent operations making us mules with all the kit. Every man wore about 120lbs which we could not reduce, the main problem was the ECM and x4 body armour plates.
Both subjects (Fitness Tests and carriage of weight) are discussed at length elsewhere.

The weight isn't the weight of what's carried "in" belt kit / webbing / bergan, etc, and never has been.
It's the weight of the belt kit / webbing / bergan including the contents. Rather different.

... and water was / is neither included nor excluded - it was / is just part of the weight at start and finish.

(and eggs have yolks - maybe they go with the loaf, to make egg banjo's)
 
Thanks for the detailed explanation, however, i was making a (un)funny - sorry:

Stage 1: – TAB: cover a total distance of 4km at 4.8km/hr (2.98mph a slow walk in a total time of 50min). Dress – webbing 9.5kg, weapon 4.5kg, bergan 26kg – total loaF 40kg.
 
Thanks for the detailed explanation, however, i was making a (un)funny - sorry:

Stage 1: – TAB: cover a total distance of 4km at 4.8km/hr (2.98mph a slow walk in a total time of 50min). Dress – webbing 9.5kg, weapon 4.5kg, bergan 26kg – total loaF 40kg.
Ummm ... I know.
 
John G


What a corker, what do you mean with the above statement? Were you actually a direct entry officer in the Queens Regiment, I really hope not, as the poor buggers you led would have sat there giggling waiting for your next classic. While your Platoon Sergeant would of surly squirmed at each word.


I remember the long-winded talk over the future structure of the Infantry we had a while ago. This has potential to go on a bit.



Does any-one on here have the “gen” on what the new PT standards for the Army are. I heard a few things coming out before summer leave on next year’s new standards, but nothing in stone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Tartan_Terrier US 46
B Army Reserve 32
Shandy123 US 4

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top