Gender Neutral Fitness Tests

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#41
Example: there are plenty of trades, units or disciplines in the military who get lost in the worst case (usually also the most ally) potential of the job, and so focus their kit, recruitment, training and chat on that. This sounds, to a degree, sensible: except that it often means that the normal running elements of the job, which they actually do day in and out, and which may be the most important part, get ignored. The result is that they are great at stuff they never do, but less than spectacular at their core job. The classic example is recce type units who spend all their training time on contact drills, and little to none on recce skills. There are others. I'm sure anyone with a bit of experience who has been in recently can think of units who big time the mechanics or sexy bits of the unit, but aren't actually much hack at their core role.

Fitness is like that. Training to the ultra worst case scenario all the time just breaks people. Tailoring it to reality is a sensible approach.
I don't entirely agree with this.

The question is not whether you are likely to do something often, it's whether you can afford to fail at it on the rare occasion that it happens.

If you don't think you'll do a live casualty drag very often and you don't really care about whether you can do it well when it does come up, you don't need to train for it at all. If you believe that you need to be able to do it without fail then you have to train for it and test that standard routinely. Simples.

It is less simple when that training comes with an opportunity cost but I don't think that applies to fitness. You're right that Recce units should probably focus on the recce bit rather than contact drills due to time limitations, but I don't think the argument extends to fitness standards.
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
#42
Without in any way minimizing the bravery of this woman, she did not, according to the report, drag the casualty. That was my only and quite precise point. I do not at all question the proven bravery of some women on the battlefield.
It may not be the best idea to "drag" someone who is severely injured.

But what do I know. :-(
 
#44
Having never been in military field combat, and as we seem to have focussed on the 'body drag', would not the large amount of adrenaline in one's body help here? (in a real situation).
 
#45
Having never been in military field combat, and as we seem to have focussed on the 'body drag', would not the large amount of adrenaline in one's body help here? (in a real situation).
It's not something that you would want to rely on.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#46
Neither will the average "he" either, of course.

Also, hands up who here has been on a "fireswept battlefield". Nobody? How about how many soldiers ever have been? Also vanishingly few, you say? Funny that.

Just because places like Iwo Jima have historically happened, doesn't mean they are anywhere near to the norm or that it is sensible to train to that ultra worst case scenario. Also, behaving as if all war is like a Transformers film on crack - as some are inclined to do - doesn't really help the military in any way.

Example: there are plenty of trades, units or disciplines in the military who get lost in the worst case (usually also the most ally) potential of the job, and so focus their kit, recruitment, training and chat on that. This sounds, to a degree, sensible: except that it often means that the normal running elements of the job, which they actually do day in and out, and which may be the most important part, get ignored. The result is that they are great at stuff they never do, but less than spectacular at their core job. The classic example is recce type units who spend all their training time on contact drills, and little to none on recce skills. There are others. I'm sure anyone with a bit of experience who has been in recently can think of units who big time the mechanics or sexy bits of the unit, but aren't actually much hack at their core role.

Fitness is like that. Training to the ultra worst case scenario all the time just breaks people. Tailoring it to reality is a sensible approach.
By the same token, hands up anyone peddling the concept of gender-neutral testing and mixed GCC units who's actually been up against a first class enemy with comparable artillery assets and aviation, much less been over-matched.

You can forget bullet-swept anything, the wheels will have come off long before then, probably when faced with that fundamental infantry survival requirement of being able to dig in at high speed.

Sadly, the current approach equates to using the Zulu War to anticipate the requirements for fighting the First World War and to career foul anyone who suggests that this might be a bad idea. The only difference in the whole affair being that we beat the Zulus.
 
#47
Interesting to note the differences between this and the US Army's new, "Project Thor" inspired fitness test.

- No push ups.

- No run.

- Weight is lifted standing on blocks and using a rope, rather than a Trap Bar Deadlift.

For their part, the US Army doesn't include any loaded marches as part of their test.
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
#49
No it's best to leave them in the back of a burning vehicle.
Given time and safe environment a back board, neck brace and pretty paramedic is the way to go. Combat situation not so much.
Yes. Must have had the wrong hat on when I posted. Apologies.
 
#50
A lot of folk on here used to laugh at the way the "British Army" was/is going,....but like Bob Monkhouse after yesterdays obvious media day no ones laughing now though are they?...i knew they had decide to allow women in but i had no idea they are already actually serving in the likes of the Jock Guards.....w




what a fvcking embarrassment it is now
 
#51
A lot of folk on here used to laugh at the way the "British Army" was/is going,....but like Bob Monkhouse after yesterdays obvious media day no ones laughing now though are they?...i knew they had decide to allow women in but i had no idea they are already actually serving in the likes of the Jock Guards.....w




what a fvcking embarrassment it is now
Why is it an embarrassment to have women in the guards?
 
#53
This may sound like a silly question but why is the ban on women serving in combat being lifted before the new fitness tests are introduced, is it because there is more chance of getting some through with the current standards in place?
 
#54
This may sound like a silly question but why is the ban on women serving in combat being lifted before the new fitness tests are introduced, is it because there is more chance of getting some through with the current standards in place?
What would be the point of that? If they're going to fail under the new standards they will next year.
 
#55
This may sound like a silly question but why is the ban on women serving in combat being lifted before the new fitness tests are introduced, is it because there is more chance of getting some through with the current standards in place?
Because bellend senior officers rushed out to be seen as all trendy and hip and down with the kids.
 
#56
What would be the point of that? If they're going to fail under the new standards they will next year.
Standards have been known to change.
 
#57

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#58
This may sound like a silly question but why is the ban on women serving in combat being lifted before the new fitness tests are introduced, is it because there is more chance of getting some through with the current standards in place?
It's the recognition that we've spent the last 20 centuries of intensive military activity deliberately passing on the decisive advantage of having women in our teeth arms and that abstract standards simply get in the way of rectifying this terrible oversight.
 
#60
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bax709 The Intelligence Cell 203
ExREME..TECH The NAAFI Bar 64
Forastero The Intelligence Cell 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top