Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Gender Neutral Fitness Tests

They weren’t pointless though, they just weren’t a brilliant measure.

Sit-ups are one way of measuring core strength and stability, it wasn’t about doing sit-ups whilst in contact with the enemy.

Same with press ups. It was one way to measure upper body strength.

PArt of the reasons they were simple measures that didn’t involve weights or kit is also that the tests could be conducted cheaply, en masse and just about anywhere.

Just because you were shite at them doesn’t make them pointless.

Now, if your point was that there are better tests then maybe we could agree.

Oi. I passed every time. Just. :D

There were always better tests, but you hit it on the head. The army couldn't be fucked doing anything that required effort.

Even the Jerry can walk was a better test. But that required Jerry cans and water.

It was laziness that kept those tests going.
 
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.
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.
My hand is up....many times. Suffice it to say we will agree to disagree with the thrust of your post.
 
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.

But there's no known reality to tailor for in war. We probably won't know what the next one looks like. So to me a professional Army will train for the unknown. That also means being ready to go and not presuming there will be a pre deployment work up.

Of course units should focus on their core role but.. If a soldier is a soldier first, fitness training, SAA training and basic fieldcraft should be seen as part of that core role training. Not an unwelcome add on just to pass annual tests.
 
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.

I do think that some form of casualty drag is a very good test though, its an ability/skill/test that every soldier should be able to do.
I would say a lot of support units focus their efforts on getting people to run 1.5 miles in their allocated time because that affect the stats and that is all that matters.

Tailoring fitness could be a good thing if it was done properly but we all know its just going to be an excuse to make things easier to boost recruitment and retention.
 
What next?
 

Attachments

  • 3cd8714e044de201cf8aa249ba869e7b031202e38af6b5bc92193ab21cca1aeb.jpg
    3cd8714e044de201cf8aa249ba869e7b031202e38af6b5bc92193ab21cca1aeb.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 150
  • 459bc1911cb3e35f0823bbb9bc9771abad3ac9f52f94ee4c2c7ba6f005c10a68.jpg
    459bc1911cb3e35f0823bbb9bc9771abad3ac9f52f94ee4c2c7ba6f005c10a68.jpg
    58 KB · Views: 144
Top