Battle fitness versus current fitness training.

Discussion in 'The Training Wing' started by old_n_fat, Jun 29, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Any comments regarding this article from Stars and Stripes. Be interested to hear comments on the current training/testing regimes employed in the British Army compared to the Americans. No slagging please, genuinely interested in thoughts, comparisons.
  2. What a question?
    I don't think you can prepare anyone more than we are at this time.
    Fitness and training for battle is one thing, but when you have an enemy firing at you in order to kill you, well that’s another, how do you get over that one?
    I have no idea, something that’s eluded statisticians for many decades :D
    Well in my experience you learn only by experience, that’s my conclusion for what its worth
  3. I was under the impression the americans were always a bit too orientated towards getting mahoosive

    Not sure this highlights anything we don't know or do already.

    CFS really
  4. The reason I am interested is that I currently work with Americans, admittedly they are support arm not infantry. The training they do is entirely geared around passing PT tests. They don't seem to do anything that will not be tested. One thing they do which we don't is "tape" people. They seem obsessed with BMI and regardless of how well they actually do on the tests if they fail the "tape" they fail full stop.
    When I was in (many years ago) the emphasis was on being fit to do the role. Obviously there was a requirement to pass the tests (used to be BFT/CFT) but these were definately seen as minumum standards not a pinnacle of achievement. So I suppose I am asking (in a rambling way) is the ability to run 1.5 miles in PT kit still seen to have any significance or is the ability to repeatedly run 100 metres quickly in full kit and still be in a position to control breathing and fire accurately more important.
  5. I would say the latter but stamina is important too. This is where the CFT comes in.

    Shooting the "Queen Mary" match at the Imperial is a good test of fitness. 4x 100m sprints with two shots at each different distance, prone, sitting, and standing. Standing at 100 you really will be feeling the effect!
  6. Depends on your job. For our rear-echelon cousins, short sprints are all they're ever likely to do, but Marines or Paras, who always find an excuse to yomp/tab somewhere with a huge bergen even when there's transport available, endurance and stamina would be just as important. Also, I've never met anyone who could run one and a half in under ten minutes who couldn't do several 100m sprints and still be in a position to fight, but I met quite a few who were the reverse.
  7. Here is the report the above article is based on:
    It seems that the Americans are getting functional with there fitness training.
    It does raise the interesting question as to how much running and what sort there should be in a military fitness program.
    Also the link for a PDF at The Cooper Institute which gives a better idea as to why the 1.5 mile and press up and sit up tests are used is here: