• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Gender Neutral Fitness Tests

#65
There isnt anyone who was born a woman currently serving as a Guardsman.
The blonde womans title in the BBC piece was Scots Guards.
 
#66
Roger.
So,why is ' deserter' saying there are women in the Scots Guards?
Because thats how the BBC introduced her in their piece, i knew it was wrong but i just assumed they were right.

i note now that it has been corrected but it did say she was Scots Guards.
 
Last edited:
#68
Roger.
So,why is ' deserter' saying there are women in the Scots Guards?
It seems they are falling over themselves in this quest for PC BULLSHIT.

Army to introduce gender and age-neutral fitness tests

"Speaking at the Army base in Aldershot on Friday, Lance Corporal Nicola Cotton of the Scots Guards said the move was “really positive”.
“People underestimate females in the British Army. I think it is about time we upped the ante and make it equal and not make allowances for gender or age,” she added."

ps i look forward to cripples, asthmatics, the blind, septogenarians and god knows what joining up next,...its like noahs ark now if i was in i'd be leaving my boots at the gate tonight.

i look forward to our army one day facing an enemy that will actually fight back, its going to be seriously humiliating watching this once respected rough mans army that has now been turned into an Army cadet force for adults of all shapes and sizes being marched into prison captivity.
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#69

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#70
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?
The opposite. The decision was taken to introduce women into the combat arms, but the numbers passing under the old fitness test would have been too few so they had to introduce an easier one.
 
#71
How is the buckshee Brigadier making snarky comments in Soldier mag supposed to tear into those of us at abbeywood who have the audacity to complain we don’t have access to a Gym?

“You can do press-ups and sit ups anywhere, you don’t need a gym” no longer cuts it :D
 
#72
Neither will the average "he" either, of course.
...
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.
...
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.
Drag Handles. Average "she" won't budge a body much the easy way either.

UK/Commonwealth Recce? Perhaps. It certainly wasn't US. We were actually in the woods, doing the job, and avoiding contact.

Who ever trained to "ultra worst case scenario all the time?" I'd dare say even the majority of "arduous courses" never get anywhere near "ultra worst case scenario," and they definitely don't last all the time. Yearly or twice yearly physical fitness testing and the training to prepare oneself for such absolutely falls well south of "ultra worst case scenario all the time."
 
#73
The blonde womans title in the BBC piece was Scots Guards.
Not like the press to present half a story is it? She's a medic attached to the Scots Guards.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#78
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.
I actually agree with this. My point about "fireswept battlefields" was not that they don't happen nor cannot happen, but that we as humans tend towards exaggerating the extremes, and we as modern soldiers are particularly bad at this concerning combat.

The reality is that most of the experiences of most people who have served, in combat, over the past twenty years operations, have been fleeting engagements, shoot and scoot, or remote contacts (eg enemy not there anymore, IED is). There have been exceptions (esp early campaigns in 2001 and 2003) but they are nowhere near the norm. For various reasons, soldiers are then inclined to exaggerate the normal experience. As a starter for ten I'd cite reasons such as: expecting it to be bigger and bangier from movies; one-upsmanship; feeling let down that their combat experience wasn't as crunchy as stories they had heard; lack of other examples to compare types of engagement so genuinely feeling a shoot and scoot is "combat"; getting badges (real and metaphorical); the group lionising combat experience over everything else; and do on. None of this is particularly the fault of those soldiers, it is simply how our brains and social mentality work as humans.

What that all means, fundamentally, is that we are simply inexperienced as to what war against a peer will be like. But we are again making a common mental error: we are substituting the experience we do have for the actual experience, which is likely to be very different. "I've been in combat" does not mean the same thing for everyone, but we incline ourselves to think that it does. That's gives false confidence, sometimes dangerously so as we make poor assessments and are overly confident in them because we have "experience". So I totally agree with you there.

That said: I disagree that this is relevant to optimal fitness training. Got to run so will expand in a different post, but good fitness training or athletic team selection does not work as: here is the 100m Olympic record, how do we get A-Z to it? It actually goes: here is A-Z, which of them has 100m Olympic potential, and how do we maximise their performance? That is a crucial difference in method which can be applied to mil fitness standards.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#79
I actually agree with this. My point about "fireswept battlefields" was not that they don't happen nor cannot happen, but that we as humans tend towards exaggerating the extremes, and we as modern soldiers are particularly bad at this concerning combat.

The reality is that most of the experiences of most people who have served, in combat, over the past twenty years operations, have been fleeting engagements, shoot and scoot, or remote contacts (eg enemy not there anymore, IED is). There have been exceptions (esp early campaigns in 2001 and 2003) but they are nowhere near the norm. For various reasons, soldiers are then inclined to exaggerate the normal experience. As a starter for ten I'd cite reasons such as: expecting it to be bigger and bangier from movies; one-upsmanship; feeling let down that their combat experience wasn't as crunchy as stories they had heard; lack of other examples to compare types of engagement so genuinely feeling a shoot and scoot is "combat"; getting badges (real and metaphorical); the group lionising combat experience over everything else; and do on. None of this is particularly the fault of those soldiers, it is simply how our brains and social mentality work as humans.

What that all means, fundamentally, is that we are simply inexperienced as to what war against a peer will be like. But we are again making a common mental error: we are substituting the experience we do have for the actual experience, which is likely to be very different. "I've been in combat" does not mean the same thing for everyone, but we incline ourselves to think that it does. That's gives false confidence, sometimes dangerously so as we make poor assessments and are overly confident in them because we have "experience". So I totally agree with you there.

That said: I disagree that this is relevant to optimal fitness training. Got to run so will expand in a different post, but good fitness training or athletic team selection does not work as: here is the 100m Olympic record, how do we get A-Z to it? It actually goes: here is A-Z, which of them has 100m Olympic potential, and how do we maximise their performance? That is a crucial difference in method which can be applied to mil fitness standards.
I agree there's a danger of generalising from the specific but, as someone (Bravo Bravo?) wrote earlier, standards may change but requirements don't.

Whatever happens in the development of of land warfare, the fittest and the strongest will always have an advantage, be that the ability to operate effectively for longer periods, the ability to better survive wounds and recover from injury, increased resistance to disease or the availability of more operational options through the avoidance of total mechanical dependency. Our policy should always be to maximise that advantage, yes there will always be some fatties, and not to be driven by a desire for promotion and the consequent satisfaction of cultural prejudice and social fashion at the expense of the Army's ability to win at the cheapest cost.

There is a legitimate suspicion that new standards are driven by the requirement to make the women in GCC units 'successful' and not by operational effectiveness. That's not an argument for unquestioningly retaining the old ways but operational effectiveness should be the acid test for the introduction of any new methods. Further, it needs to be seen to the acid test if the CoC is to have any credibility after multiple failures of moral courage and general political spinelessness over the previous two decades.

If people are cynical, the CoC has only itself to blame for consistently taking the easy option and the physiological double-speak associated with this brave new fitness world suggests that BOHICA is the way to bet yet again. With my doctrinal hat on, I would say that our moral component is currently shot to hell and will remain so until the CoC grows a pair and starts demonstrably making military decisions for military reasons.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bax709 The Intelligence Cell 203
ExREME..TECH The NAAFI Bar 66
Forastero The Intelligence Cell 0

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top