Should fitness be a "personal responsibility" for soldiers?

Because both of those scenarios sound like what is termed Battle PT. The difference is who is running it more than what the activity is.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 
Even on a course??
Do you mean if someone was on a course and the home unit had PT? Most likely the PT would be during working hours for the course but if there were late afternoon or evening sessions no reason why not. That's what happens at Shrivenham with PT classes before and after normal working hours for people to sign up and attend as and when they can

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 
I think it may be worth establishing exactly what you mean by 'battle PT' and whose supervision it's under.

I assumed, going back to post #255 where you quoted me talking about what an 'unqualified JNCO' can't do, you were talking about the 'old days' where JNCOs (and SNCOs and offrs) could get away with taking log / stretcher runs, lift and carries, etc, as long as it was supposedly part of field trg - which they haven't been able to do for the best part of 30 years or more.
Long CASEVACs in the field aren't that uncommon, nor is carrying mission specific equipment for long enough that moving the ladders to a FIBUA area at speed can seem strangely similar to a stretcher run....

Most of the time it just has to be cleared as part of the exercise planning process. If its "a bit sticky" then Commanders may well ask PTIs for advice but frankly they tend to be so risk averse they'll deny almost anything in case it comes back to them.

Lift and carries can be done as part of a Battle Lesson/Exercise.
 
It’s not, but doing the fan sure is hard physical work. I suspect selection doesn’t have a PTI. Is that not phys?
Are you serious?

No, selection isn't PT! There's a hint in the word 'selection'.

Genuinely unbelievable.
I'd be prettty vexed is Bde/Div/army/any HQ were out of office for the same time as an infantry rifle Coy to maintain and keep the same fitness levels. It would be inappropriate too, as you mention, there fitness for an infanteer is different. So when/how does SO2 G3 maintain his fitness for SUC sat next to SO2 SPS
No idea what your point is since, as you said I'd mentioned, it would be inappropriate!

SO2s, like anyone else in a HQ, field army or not (not sure you understand what 'field army' means) can generally keep sufficiently fit with three x 45 minute sessions a week, with staggered attendance. Not exactly complicated.
IBS courses are role specific courses, so the standard of fitness should be the basic standard of an infanteer. That you think it is a special standard suggests that what is done in work time isn’t enoug
Maybe you should read what you wrote again.

Yes the courses are "role specific". SCBC, PSBC, PCBC, etc. But most basic infantrymen don't do those roles - only SC / PS / PC do. Most basic infantrymen are ... well ... basic infantrymen, not commanders.
For a JohnG ad him as you normally play the ball “your experience is so outdated you don’t know what you’re talking about. IBS courses are standard infantry courses, it should be the standard of fitness all infanteers are at. If you think it requires extra training the units you were in obviously were not fit enough for their core role. You also don’t appreciate how those going on your etc wearing body armour require different fitness to wearing CBA and running round sennybridge.”
See above. "All infanteers" don't do commanders' courses at IBC or anywhere else. Commanders do.

Have you been smoking something?

Edit: I re-read the last part I quoted and you must be smoking something. 'CBA' is ... ummm ... 'body armour'.
 
Last edited:
Long CASEVACs in the field aren't that uncommon, nor is carrying mission specific equipment for long enough that moving the ladders to a FIBUA area at speed can seem strangely similar to a stretcher run....

Most of the time it just has to be cleared as part of the exercise planning process. If its "a bit sticky" then Commanders may well ask PTIs for advice but frankly they tend to be so risk averse they'll deny almost anything in case it comes back to them.

Lift and carries can be done as part of a Battle Lesson/Exercise.
That's exactly why I'm asking @irlsgt exactly what he meant by 'Battle PT' as in the dim and distant past this used to be a way of those who were totally unqualified giving their sects / pls extra PT (log / stretcher runs, etc) just by adding the word 'battle', going way outside any authorised PT programme.

As he quoted me talking about JNCOs not being allowed to take unauthorised / unapproved PT I assumed that's what he was talking about, as there's an obvious world of difference between that and what you're talking about (which is exactly what I thought you were talking about!).
 
No, no effort at all and desperately unfit and less interest. I only captained and led the 'Gun Runners' marathon team and captained DQD to win the Army Athletics Championships, though I take and deserve no ctedit there, did several courses at ASPT, and led assorted international and tri-service expeds because I was unfit and preferred sitting on my fat, beer swilling, chain smoking arrse.
Good for you. Well done that man.
 
Why any course would want to run voluntary Battle PT is beyond me, as is why anyone would want to attend given the risk of injury (particularly short term) and consequent inability to continue the course and RTU.
Who said voluntary? Complusory!

Do you mean if someone was on a course and the home unit had PT? Most likely the PT would be during working hours for the course but if there were late afternoon or evening sessions no reason why not. That's what happens at Shrivenham with PT classes before and after normal working hours for people to sign up and attend as and when they can

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
It would be unusual for an infantry career course here for battle pt not to be on the training programme at some stage

That's exactly why I'm asking @irlsgt exactly what he meant by 'Battle PT' as in the dim and distant past this used to be a way of those who were totally unqualified giving their sects / pls extra PT (log / stretcher runs, etc) just by adding the word 'battle', going way outside any authorised PT programme.

As he quoted me talking about JNCOs not being allowed to take unauthorised / unapproved PT I assumed that's what he was talking about, as there's an obvious world of difference between that and what you're talking about (which is exactly what I thought you were talking about!).
I can only use my experience here.

In Ireland there are 3 PT qualifications:
PT Leader - warm up, run in PT gear, cool down
PT Supervisor - circuit & resistance training, basic fitness programmes, runs in PT gear etc
PT Instructor - everything - obstacle courses, battle PT, runs in combat gear

Battle PT has to be a programmed and risk assessed like everything else. It is far from unofficial.

I’m kind of shocked that it isn’t used in the British Army
 
If it's compulsory or on a course programme then it'll have been risk assessed and programmed by the PTIs.

Battle PT is programmed and risk assessed.
 
Who said voluntary? Complusory!
It's clearly in the post you quoted at #277 when you quoted @Commentator saying "For accuracy units can run Battle PT where all comers who are free can attend, same with TAB training".

If you want to ask about one thing, then FFS please don't quote someone talking about something else as part of your question!
It would be unusual for an infantry career course here for battle pt not to be on the training programme at some stage.
@Commentator's obviously in exactly the same quandary as I was - you've quoted him saying one thing then asked and opined about something else, exactly as you did with me! FFS read what you quote.

Battle PT has to be a programmed and risk assessed like everything else. It is far from unofficial.
I’m kind of shocked that it isn’t used in the British Army.
IT IS USED!!!

The problem is we're talking about three different things:
  1. You're talking about 'Battle PT' run by a PTI.
  2. @Commentator's talking, I think, about 'Battle PT' either run by a PTI (as it would be on a course) or as part of a unit's field trg, BLs, BHEs, etc, after doing the necessary programming and assessments and running it past a PTI if necessary.
  3. I'm talking about the same thing as @Commentator AND 'Battle PT' of old, namely PT run by the unqualified and unauthorised dressed up as field training.
 
That triggered a thought - Maybe the 'personal responsibility' refers to the effort each soldier should put in to their phys, and to attend phys sessions, during Army time.
Exactly.
100% spot on.

Despite the 'dumb's and 'disagrees' to my OP, and the disagreements and going round in circles since, I think this is possibly one of the few threads (at least where I've posted) where everyone posting, whatever their / our initial views seems now in broad agreement ....

Fitness, like any other military skill / requirement, needs input from both the Army and the soldier to meet the required standards, whether those standards are the Army's or the unit's:

The Army needs to provide:
  1. The expertise.
  2. The facilities.
  3. The training.
  4. The supervision.
  5. The time, and ...
  6. The motivation (carrot and stick).
The individual soldier needs to provide:
  1. The interest.
  2. The effort, and ...
  3. The motivation (pride).

Where we may differ is over who's failed to meet their obligations.

To me the Army's failed to provide adequate time in most units (worst of all in HQ, CS and CSS units) so it's become the norm for many soldiers to have to train in their own time, failed to provide the supervision as much of that training in soldiers' own time is unsupervised or undirected, and failed to provide the expertise (if what some serving have said happens is the norm).

Worst of all, the Army's completely failed to provide any motivation. There's no carrot because there's no incentive beyond pride, and if anything there's a dis-incentive as the fit end up carrying the un-fit and doing their job for them; and there's no stick because it doesn't matter if you're unfit or on a biff-chit, you'll still be paid the same and play sport, do AT and be promoted, and even if you're on remedial PT you're excused normal PT.

Some soldiers may have failed to do their part but, given the Army's failures, I think the Army has a lot more to answer for than the soldiers and there's no sign at all of any of that changing, despite THOR, despite 'personalised' programmes, and despite revised PFAs / AFTs / PESs.
 
As my two cents, PT should be done in Army time. I've been at bases where its sessions run at varying times throughout the day all week so that people can turn up to which they choose, and I've seen those sessions be absolutely packed. I've done organised sqn PT and then had no PTI and just had time allocated to do my own phys.

Ironically, the fittest I ever got was during the latter, when I could go to the gym for an hour plus and work on things that I was bad at until I was alright at them. It should be the Army's responsibility to make the time at the very least, and best case provide constructive sessions that will build on people's fitness.

At the same time, it's the individual responsibility to ensure they maintain a healthy weight and attitude in order for the 3 sessions a week to actually keep them ticking over. I have no trouble admitting that I was a right chubby bastard, and found maintaining my run time a challenge. Decided that enough was enough, so lost 13kg and smashed phys in the evenings whilst on a course with no structured PT and I suddenly found that it was a lot easier to do any kind of exercise and maintain even a base level of fitness. When structured PT was brought back in when one of the lads completed the PTI course, it was more than enough to keep me up to standard.

I'm pleased the fitness standards have been made job specific, despite the risk of blokes slacking. I think personally that the scoring system should mean something, just give some kind of incentive to strive for the best score possible. Whether you do this in-house or army wide, it'd give a reason to put in the extra effort.

It is very easy in the army (and RAF, I hasten to add) to get yourself on the biff and turn into a fat mess. Said fat mess will continue to avoid PT, until the chit runs out, they'll be upgraded until the next fitness test comes about and then be biffed again prior to (or during) the test.

I had my fitness test this morning, and there were two sizeable individuals who were obviously in that exact scenario. The PTI was calling for the female to pick it up a bit at level 5 something on the bleep test. She needed 7.2, which is roughly 6 minutes of running at an average of 10km/h. The bloke required low 9 something, and stopped and chundered over the 5-a-side goal at late level 7. Good drills.
 
I had my fitness test this morning, and there were two sizeable individuals who were obviously in that exact scenario. The PTI was calling for the female to pick it up a bit at level 5 something on the bleep test. She needed 7.2, which is roughly 6 minutes of running at an average of 10km/h. The bloke required low 9 something, and stopped and chundered over the 5-a-side goal at late level 7. Good drills.
They'll probably get promoted soon.
 
@John G
Not sure why any of us are talking out “Battle PT” of old, I’m certainly not.

Not sure how you got that impression but anyway

Battle PT is battle PT (and should be run by an appropriate trained adult) as part of a structured risk assessed programme.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top