# Whither Our Warriors-The Lowering of Standards



## the patriot (26 Jan 2001)

Saturday 21 October 2000 

Whither our warriors?
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women has been instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.

a journalist
Ottawa Citizen

Warrior or wimp? 

One debate within Canada's military that doesn't go away is the argument that the Armed Forces is becoming a kinder, gentler and ultimately ineffective fighting machine. 

In the army itself, some wonder if Canada's soldiers are out of shape and losing their fighting skills, a downhill slide they, wrongly or rightly, link to the introduction of women into combat jobs. Others note that the lessening of fitness standards has to do with changes in Canadian society in which fitness has generally deteriorated. Still others bemoan an increasingly common attitude that military life is just another job and not a profession that includes laying down your life for your country. 

Canadian army physical fitness tests are designed to be gender and age neutral. Officers have been reprimanded for yelling at overweight soldiers. Recruits are no longer required to hurl a grenade into a designated target area. Just being able to throw one is enough. 

"Training standards have gone down," says Howard Michitsch, a former army major who worked on the program to enlist more women into the Armed Forces. "Are we inherently getting rid of the warrior class? I think we are to a degree." 

A master corporal writing from Bosnia several months ago called the large number of physically unfit people in the Armed Forces a public relations disaster. "If the buttons on your uniform are ready to pop off and possibly injure an innocent bystander, drop the bucket of poutine and waddle yourself down to the gym," wrote Master Cpl. D. London in a letter to the military newspaper, the Maple Leaf. "As for the policy, it appears to say that you can get as fat as you want, fail your (fitness) test if you feel like it, but you'll never be kicked out." 

Military officials contend Canada's soldiers are fit and better trained than they have been in a long time. Training standards are now clearly laid out and understood. "We believe we've got a good product out there," says army Col. Stephen Appleton. "Can it get better? Absolutely. But it is a good product." 

Canadian Alliance defence critic Art Hanger, however, believes training and physical fitness standards have decreased in the last decade because of what he calls "social engineering." Overall standards have been weakened so the military can recruit more women, in particular, he claims. 

He is not alone. Surveys of male soldiers conducted during the last couple of years show they think standards have loosened to allow women into combat, something military officials categorically deny. A 1996 report to then-defence minister Doug Young also hinted the changes were linked to women's roles in combat. "Women should be and are eligible to serve in every area of the CF and at all ranks, but training standards must not be lowered further (the army is already one of the mildest training armies in the West) to achieve numerical quotas," states the report. 

The outline of basic recruit training standards that Mr. Hanger obtained under the Access to Information Act clearly shows in 1984 the physical fitness test consisted of pushups, chin-ups, sit-ups, rope climbing, scaling a wall unassisted, as well as the ability to carry a wounded comrade. There were different standards for men and women. In 1996, along with a 13-kilometre forced march, standards included pushups, chin-ups, and sit-ups but the numbers required had been dropped for both men and women. Scaling walls and climbing ropes had disappeared. 

The army now has one test -- a battle-efficiency test that consists of a 13.5-kilometre forced march while carrying 22.5 kilograms of equipment. That is followed by the "casualty evacuation drill," otherwise known as the fireman's carry. 

In 1986, an infantryman had to throw two live fragmentation grenades 20 metres and one grenade had to land within a six-metre circle target. Using a short-range anti-tank weapon, infantrymen had to achieve a minimum of one hit on a stationary tank-sized target from between 150 to 200 metres away. 

By 1996, two grenades still had to be thrown, but missing the target didn't mean the recruit would fail the test. Missing the target with an anti-tank weapon or a light mortar also didn't mean failure. 

Despite the changes, Col. Appleton says the quality of the army's training is on the rise, although he readily acknowledges there is no way to measure his claim. He says it is important not to set standards so high at the recruit level that young soldiers may be prevented from continuing their careers. "We have to be careful we don't draw that line too soon," explains Col. Appleton, the director of land force readiness. "In some ways, weapons handling and weapons accuracy should not be that line." As soldiers progress, they become experienced in everything from weapons to surviving on the battlefield. 

The army's age and gender neutral battle efficiency test, designed to be the same for men and women, is seen as leading-edge by other militaries, which are considering adopting it, says Maj. Kelly Farley, who helps design the army's policy for training and standards. The test is already being used by the Dutch armed forces. 

Maj. Farley denies the fitness test was a result of the push to put women in combat jobs, although, he concedes, they coincided with that program. "There will always be this perception among some folks who see this as pandering to women in combat jobs," he says. "But it has nothing to do with that." 

He says the annual test was designed three years ago because of the need for a fitness regimen that better reflected the tasks that soldiers perform, as well as to protect the Canadian Forces from legal challenges that such tests have to be job-related. "We knew women were coming into the combat arms so we wanted to develop a test that was gender neutral," explains Maj. Farley. "The legal perspective was certainly in the back of our minds. We wanted the test to withstand any challenge that was put to us." 

Soldiers who don't pass the test are retested until they do. If they consistently fail there may be career ramifications, but troops generally acknowledge it is rare to be thrown out of the military for being unfit. 

For those not in the army units, there is the EXPRES test which consists of a shuttle run, sit-ups and pushups based on gender and age. The standard is considered relatively low when compared to the rigours of combat. 

Maj. Farley believes the level of army fitness during the decade has improved because of the increase in overseas assignments. "I think a lot of it has to do with Bosnia and that our army is now an army of veterans," he says. "People have an expectation that their professional standards, whether physical or technical, will be challenged not just in a formal way, but an informal way in operations, so they better have their act together." 

Mr. Michitsch believes the army's fitness test isn't up to scratch but he stops short of blaming that entirely on the introduction of women into combat jobs. Pushups and pull-ups to build upper body strength, as well as scaling walls and climbing ropes, relate directly to soldiering, he notes. Warfare is highly demanding and high technology has done nothing to lessen the need for absolute fitness and skill. "We carry the same weight load today as Caesar's legions did," says Mr. Michitsch. "Instead of a bronze shield, you have a Kevlar flak jacket. Instead of short sword and spear, you've got a grenade-launching assault rifle." 

According to Mr. Michitsch, the military's now-defunct Warrior program held the answer to the army's problems with fitness. Each year, every soldier in the army, without exception, had to complete the physical fitness and weapons skill courses. Depending on their results, they were awarded a badge, either bronze, silver or gold. "You knew exactly who you were dealing with," explains Mr. Michitsch. "If the guy had the badge, that meant you knew his level of qualification and his level of physical fitness and skill." 

In particular, the Warrior badge program was a source of pride for many non-combat support troops, since a high standing helped gain them respect from infantry soldiers. 

Tougher standards would likely be welcomed if Canada's soldiers ever found themselves in combat. It is not usual for a soldier these days to be carrying up to 45 kilograms of equipment, noted Maj. Richard Eaton writing last year in the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin. Maj. Eaton also pointed out the consequences of soldiers not being physically fit: During the Falklands War one British army unit, used to travelling by armoured vehicles, was unable to march on foot to one battlefield because they weren't as physically fit as paratroopers and Royal Marine commandos also involved in fighting. 

Maj. Eaton, who served with the British army's parachute regiment and the Royal Marines and is now in Canada's military reserves, also questioned the effectiveness of the existing fitness standards. "Canada's infantry battle fitness standards are currently ill-defined," wrote Maj. Eaton. "We must face reality and continue to seek ways to improve our physical standards while refusing to condone physical mediocrity at all levels in the infantry." 

Those in the Canadian Forces who have raised questions about dwindling standards and the link to a kinder, more politically correct military, are not alone. Last fall, British army instructors were told to stop swearing at recruits in basic training so they didn't scare potential soldiers away. Two years ago, a former sergeant on the British army's parachute regiment recruiting team warned that many soldiers were overweight and undisciplined. 

In the U.S., the army is changing its programs to help overweight and less-fit recruits pass basic training. A new remedial course is being given for obese soldiers who need an easier pace so they don't quit early in training. 

Canadian military instructors have also toned down their language to avoid harassment charges. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bar a potential recruit because of poor fitness, others say. 

Australia is one nation, however, which has acted on concerns about unfit soldiers. Last year, it weeded out almost 700 officers and other ranks for failing to meet army fitness requirements, including being capable of completing a 2.4-kilometre run in less than 12 minutes, a shooting test, overall medical fitness and the readiness to travel overseas within 30 days. 

But with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the desire of the Department of National Defence to avoid controversy, military analysts say such a widespread purge of unfit soldiers is unlikely to happen in this country. 

***********************************
-the patriot-


----------



## 2 Charlie (27 Jan 2001)

Amazing how many mid level officers have brought forward the Ossie model, and amazing how many senior officers shoot it down.

Partially I would think, the Ossie model would put many of them out of a job.  The Ossie‘s undertook a major restructuring in the early 90‘s late 80‘s.  A big portion of their reductions concerned the elimination of redundant staff officers and general officers.  They were plagued with elaborate HQ‘s such as we are that commanded no troops etc.

They axed the superfluous positions, re assessed their mission, relocated their military facilities, and got on with soldiering, sailing and flying.   

When I see more senior airforce brass than we have matching numbers in aircraft, I am concerned.  When I see more flag officers than ships, I worry, but when I see more staff positions than actual soldiers doing the job of soldiering, I have lost faith.


----------



## RCA (27 Jan 2001)

I think it is  easy to blame the fitness standards just because women are now in combat roles. I can cite some examples of  disproving this - 

The first one is the no-run in combat boots bullshit. (this has to be considered gender neutral) I guess we are suppose to go into combat in sneakers. If the combat boot is not good enough to run in just maybe it‘s time to get something different.

Next if everyone remembers , instead of the 13 km we did the 3.1 km run for Warrior. That is until a couple of soldiers (reservists) got hurt doing it and it was determined by the treasury board that they we not covered and therefore shit out of luck for compensation. That‘s why it disappeared. Can you imagine something so ludicrous as a military fitness test no being covered  compensation wise.

Next, in the reserves, units cannot do organized sports unless it is specifically authorized by the unit CO otherwise if they get hurt (whether they are  on Class A or not) they are not covered. See comments above. The forces have become so liability conscious, it dictates everything and that is why we are in the position we are in now.

Lastly as an aside and maybe because I am a 40 something" herbie, I find that the 13 km is not easy and is very demanding physically. Just ask my feet afterwards.

------------------
Ubique


----------



## 2 Charlie (28 Jan 2001)

RCA, to bring it into perspective, because I live it.  We have gone from leading to managing.  What I see day in and day out is ‘how do we manage to keep ourselves out of shit and how do we keep the troops in line so that we don‘t have to answer questions or be held accountable. 

As you indicated ‘Next if everyone remembers, instead of the 13 km we did the 3.1 km run for Warrior. That is until a couple of soldiers (reservists) got hurt doing it and it was determined by the treasury board that they we not covered and therefore shit out of luck for compensation. That‘s why it disappeared. Can you imagine something so ludicrous as a military fitness test no being covered compensation wise.‘


RCA, we have an entire system of bureaucracy devoted to just such a machine.  if we got rid of the excess of CFLA‘s, JAG‘s, D Min‘s, Associate D Minâ€™s, we might get somewhere, especially with the dollar savings.

To put those dollars back into the three basic elements of doing our job, then we will all benefit.  As for me, I am at the point were the little wheel is harder to turn each day, that piece of cheese is getting more bitter tasting, and I am thinking of finding a new treadmill far from the palace.

We have created a system of accountability that is ludicrous, distorted and simply out of control.

What we see unfolding will prove my words and worse, be the demise of the CF we know today.  

Shot over


----------



## Gunner (28 Jan 2001)

Whither our Warriors?  What is the definition of a Canadian Warrior?  We seem to think our predecessors were more "warrior-like" they we are.  

During CFE days - the old sgt that was able to drink in the Gasthauf all night and snap n‘ snarl all day to get things done.  Was that our Warrior of yester year?

Our forefathers in Korea?  For the most part unemployed soldiers that were not able to fit into society after being demobilized after WWII.  Was that our Warrior of yester year?

Our forefathers in WWII?  The vast majority citizen soldiers answer the call to duty.  The whole scale gutting of "Regular Force" soldiers who were incompetent (PPCLI - Italy Campaign). Was that our Warrior of yester year?   

Our forefathers in WWI?  Farmboys looking for great adventure and a chance to see Europe?  Stuck in the rigours trench warfare where alcohol was used to boost the courage of the men so they would follow the officers over the wall?  Was that our Warrior of yester year?

What is your definition of Canada‘s Warrior?  I say to you it is simply a romantic version of what we deem the past to be as we navigate through the struggles of today.  You seem to think everything was perfect in the "old days" and it wasn‘t.

Our society has changed, so too must our military.   I‘m not sure how we‘ve gone from leading to managing.  In my mind they are mutually supporting concepts.  The  increase in accountability and the rise of legal opinions is simply a reflection of society.  Gone are the days that the Offr and NCO can say or do anything they want regardless of the consequences.  You can accept that fact or you can get out.


----------



## RCA (28 Jan 2001)

As I state again my problem with the system is the ducking of responsibility when soldier‘s are doing what would in normal circles be considered "military activity" ie running in combat boots and doing the 3.1 and are not covered

Moving to another track of the above article is the nonsense that trg standards are lowering. We might not like them but there is now a central body (AIDAS I think) that governs trg and sets common standards.

With comments like "Last fall, British army instructors were told to stop swearing at recruits in basic training" and  "Those in the Canadian Forces who have raised questions about dwindling standards and the link to a kinder, more politically correct military" gives the wrong perception.

Who amongst us has not seen some MCpl or Sgt get right in a candidate‘s face and start screaming at him. (I did myself before I knew better) and we consider it training. It any other circle it would be considered verbal harassment and I for one am not sorry to see the abuse of candidates go by the wayside. The only reason we did is because we could and that was how we were trained.

You show me an instructor screaming at his  students and I‘ll show you someone losing control. All you NCOs out there know the definition of leadership - the art of motivating people through the dent of your personality. Screaming and yelling isn‘t motivating anyone, just making them afraid of you. Sure they will do whatever you want but only while you are around. Would you trust those who are afraid of you to cover your back when the chips are down - care to put your life on the line.

The way to do things is through leadership - a dying art. You tell your recruits that you are going on a 13 km ruck march. Then you get out front and lead away. You constantly move back and forth up and down tell line motivating your troops to keep together as a team and you bring them in together. To keep up this leadership through example and these troops will follow you any where.

For you screamers out there I always found it more effective to speak softly in a recruit‘s  ear from behind then to scream in his face. I have been around a long time and trained a lot of troops and not once have I ever been accused of harassment or abuse. I always followed the simple rule to treat everyone equally and as human beings. I was the top detachment commander in my unit for a number off years, and I didn‘t get there by being a screamer.

And lastly, if you are always screaming and swearing at your people, how do they know when you are really serious pissed of with them??

------------------
Ubique


----------



## 2 Charlie (28 Jan 2001)

Whither Our Warriors

Whither Our Warriors, I think this term has a lot to do with the immediate than any belief of glory past, other than the Guns, kidding.

All righty, just a recap.  I have never been a proponent of physical nor verbal abuse.  I do not use vulgarity, it does have a place with some people, however to each their own.

A leader, acting as a leader, within the legal moral parameters of his authority should never worry about legal and ethical challenges if they are doing their job properly.

We have reached an acute level of mediocrity that will only capitulate into mind numbing levels if we donâ€™t get a grip on it.  

The days of some section commander grabbing his troops and doing a surprise ruck march or run are gone.  In the majority of those cases this was nothing more than a form of abuse by a weak individual to put his troops in line so that they knew who was boss.  

However, to be afraid of organizing a sport or activity during a unit level ex because of potential ramifications, that is absurd, and that is were we are.  We see the Cooper Test popping up here and there with field units, highly controversial, especially when a unit unofficially uses it to evaluate troops.  Sorry folks there are set standards.  How about the small unit that has a couple old dogs from CFE era who can run forever, does this mean that the less speedy are weak, they would have you think so.  What about those of the Borne era, first mistake youâ€™re a leg, second you canâ€™t hump as hard, fast or as long as they can, means your weak, right.  What about the field support units who have to prove that they can run, train and compete harder than the grunt units.

So go look at the field units that still do this stuff, look at their down rates and types of injuries.  How is it with a set doctrine, we have so called leaders doing these things and literally getting away with damaging troops.

My point to ponder is, we have created a system that stifles honest leaders out of fear of maybe doing the wrong thing and we have individuals who still do it wrong but get away with it.  

We have an entire entourage of staff at our various HQâ€™s who are employed to define what is morally and academically correct, the problem comes with the dissemination to the unit and individual level.  Nobody wants to make a mistake, understood, but those who continue to make mistakes seem to find a mechanism to skirt the system, and keep popping into the mainstream occasionally, only to go underground and resurface elsewhere.


----------



## Gunner (29 Jan 2001)

2 Charlie, you once again let the chip on your shoulder get the better of your comments, either that, or you have been sucked in by the drudge of half baked lies that Scott Taylor spouts to the national media.

The world we live in today is alot more complex then the world we use to live.  The idea that one can operate without legal advise is ludicrous.  Morals, ethics and legal issues are all good professional development training (or do you propose professional development is afternoon drinks at a curry luncheon?).  How is this a level of mediocrity?  

Standards are just that, a standard.  It is used to evaluate oneself or the group against what everyone should be capable of doing.  What the army has had to deal with is no set standard in the past (except for whoever is the highest rank).  No the current standard is not adequate however the army is also raising that standard in the next little while.  But I‘m sure you will complain about that standard as well.

How can you say that we have a system that stifles honest leaders out of fear of doing something wrong?  Based on what?  Who does things wrong and get away with it?

Once again 2 Charlie your lips are flapping but you are not making any sense.  Do you have any other proof besides your ability to type on a computer?


----------



## JRMACDONALD (29 Jan 2001)

Gunner- IRT your last tirade to 2Charles, I take it you regard DND/CF releases to the national media as "gospel"( truth in reporting,no spin doctoring, no errors of omission,ETC.)


----------



## 2 Charlie (29 Jan 2001)

Well Gunner, I wish I could live in your vacuum and put on a set of blinders and whistle my merry way through life.

The Scott Taylor‘s of the world come and go, but those busting their hump are usually in for the  long haul.

Get off your chair pad and talk to some troops, in fact talk to a bunch of NCM‘s.  Ask them what they think, and not just the ones under your control.  Then maybe talk to a couple of reservists pulling Class B and C callout.  You indicate Army of the West, well lucky you, there are a lot of them you can talk to.

Also ask these reservists why they are not so willing to go on call outs overseas, you might not like the truth.  Don‘t talk to the career reserve staff officers, talk to the Cpl‘s and MCpls, and Snr NCO‘s who have been doing it for a couple of years.

Then once you have done that talk to someone in releases and get an idea of the stats, and if you are lucky, ask someone or two or three why they are getting out.

As for the comments of those doing it right and those doing it wrong, at my end it refs to the ticket system.  You are employed in various capacities to literally punch your ticket, you sign off your various tests or evals and get promoted accordingly.  The majority of this work is staff related.  If you can do this with out making a mistake you will do good, it may involve a command slot, but even there you are dealing with ensuring the admin is good to go.

Amazing how many new CO‘s walk into a unit and find little probs that were missed in the BOI, and they have to deal with it before their BOI.  Then you have the CO who utilizes his own standard to assess his troops, such as the Coopers test, and ranks his troops accordingly for unit meriting.  If you don‘t have a prob with that then maybe you have had one to many curry ups at the mess.  It‘s good to see a firm line on enforcement WRT failures in the CofC, but it had to happen, we could not keep hiding the Vaviers of the forces, we do however have the Labbe‘ but that is another story on its own.

Sitting around and doing it the old boy way, not in my world.  I prefer that a decision is made based upon an individuals level of expertise/knowledge and the chain of command supporting it.  Not assessing it for legal merit and potential implications.  That in itself indicates that we do not have faith in out chain of command, especially our Jnr O‘s and Jnr/Snr NCO‘s.

The mediocrity starts there, if an individual is willing to take the time to have a decision analyzed before implementing it, than we have almost rendered that person impotent.  If you don‘t agree than don‘t bother going onto a battle field, cause I don‘t have faith in you to get your troops home.

Some one else mentioned The Art of War, maybe pick up a copy and read it a couple of times.  Then come back.  

I will end this by pointing out the comment you made about this being a more complex world.  The technology at the grunt level has increased, but the job is still the same.  we have in essence given soldiers more technical knowledge and expect more of them, yet we have lessened the extent by which we allow them to develop initiative.  This in light of a real world with varying dynamics, this is where I want a responsible OC or NCO on the spot dealing with issues and the intestinal fortitude to make a decision, real time, real world.


----------



## Gunner (29 Jan 2001)

2 Charlie, I‘ve never said that the CF/DND did not have problems however I‘m not so disillusioned with the entire system that I spout the anti-establishment drivel that is written in your posts.

I work with troops everyday and the problems most of them have are pretty minor compared to what you seem to think is wrong.  There will always be problems thats why we should discuss them in an open and logical manner.

There are lots of Reservists serving overseas right now.  In Bosnia there are over 250 serving with Op PALLADIUM.  That is close to the maximum 20% mandated by the CDS.  If we had some type of legislation enacted this figure could probably much higher.

CO‘s BOI not covering every detail?  Come on are you naive enough to think a BOI is the exact picture of what a unit is?  It‘s simply a macro view of the unit.

Vanier was caught, charged, convicted and sentenced.  He was reduced in rank, fined and his career ruined.  What more do you want the CF to do to him.  Kick him out?  Was the crime that severe? 

You complain about a lack of opportunity for initiative and ability to "grow" however I would say the jr leader of today has more experience then his predecessor did.  Have you never been overseas on a mission?  Every mission we have been on has been based on MCpl/Sgt or Lt/Capt being capable and independent thinkers in order to succeed.    We never had that level of experience in the 80s.    

I‘m not the War Diary police and really you can say whatever you like.  I am concerned with the number of young impressionable members we have in this forum that are subjected to your negative attitude.  I hope you are not in the military any more and if you are you have been relegated to some flunky staff job because if your leading troops I shudder to think what you are doing to them.

If you don‘t like the military leave.  If you don‘t think you views are acknowledged it‘s probably because you are in the minority and your views are not relavent anymore.  It‘s guys like you that ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## Gunner (29 Jan 2001)

JRMACDONALD - Sorry I didn‘t see your post.  No I don‘t believe everything I read from DND/CF.  I don‘t have alot of respect for PAffOs and I firmly believe that DND/CF could be alot more proactive in terms of "getting the word out" to both military and civilians.  Having said that I am not jaded enough to believe there is a plot at the upper echelons of DND/CF where the DMs and General/Flag Offrs sit at a table trying to decide how they can best keep power and screw everyone else.  I hope you don‘t think that either.  If you think that the "higher ups" don‘t care about you, I can tell you that they do.  Sometimes they are caught in a very rigid system of regulation imposed by the government that is not very flexible. Should we encourage them to say "damn regulations" and do whatever the popular decision is?  Leadership by popular decision....what an army we would have.


----------



## kaspacanada (2 Feb 2001)

Ok, I can run the 2.4 in just under 13 minutes, which is nothing too impressive.  I have been working really really hard to get in shape and I am still working harder so I can get in the best shape I can.  I think the army‘s physical standards are fairly low.  I think the politically correct attitudes in training are bullshit.  You are preparing SOLDIERS for war, not a vacation.  I was hoping to go to do my QL 2/3 course this summer and experience 10 weeks of the most demanding physical and mental pressure.  Instead, I am looking forward to a standard of training that most people seem to describe as pitiful and lagging behind what is necessary.  I mean, I want a demanding challenge - not a 5km trot with half my gear.  I don‘t want an easy training course.  If I could, I would be gone all summer training and not just two months.  Reg force basis is 10 weeks and then another 16 weeks at battle school.  My course for QL2/3 is only 8 or 9 weeks in total.  I would say that there is a severe gap in the level of training.  Or at least the exposure to the military combat training environment.

  I would never state that women have dropped the physical standards, I think the standards should have been kept the same as they were in 1986.  If women couldn‘t do it, they would try until they could instead of lowering standards.  They should have kept the standards where they were where they were.  I am sure women would make it, and if they didn‘t, it is NOT a matter of gender discrimitation, it is simply the duties of the jobs.  

I think that the entry standards should be fine where they are.  However, I feel that soldiers should have an obligation to get in shape, and stay in shape.  Seriously, that story about the Brits who couldn‘t march to a battlefield because they weren‘t used to it - that should never be the case.  That is an embarrasement to that nations military.


----------



## RCA (3 Feb 2001)

Somehow I get the distinct impression that you believe the QL2/3 being a cakewalk. I have been invovled with the QL2/3 Arty in Shilo and you ask any of thosae gradutes and they will tell you different. Remember the crse is not just about physical fitness and  I guarentee you will be doing the 13 km ruck march because that is the WATC standard.

The difference in lenght between the Reserve and Reg F crse crse is due to the fact that our crses must fit into the summer to accomadate the nature of our recruiuts (ie studends) whereas the Reg F does not have the same time restarints. (Also for your info the QL2 portion you will be doing is exactly the same as the Reg F one.)

Don‘t take this personally but people will not take your criticism seriuosly until you have actually had the experience of what you are being critical of.

When you complete QL2/3 (and I know you will ) you have all the basic skills to be a good infanteer. It will then be up to you to develope them.


----------



## fusilier (11 Feb 2001)

Be careful RCA.  The infantry QL3 has changed substantially.  When I did mine two years ago,there was no training on the C6 and the Carl G 84mm due to budget cutbacks.  It fell to our unit to train us on these weapons.  
This summer I found myself on the QL3 staff as Demo.  Yes, the C6 and the Carl G training was put back into the QL3, however, a lot of things changed.  The 13km was NOT mandatory, and some platoons did not even attempt it at all.  On my QL3, we all did the 13km ruck march and we all completed it.  You could‘ve still passed the course without finishing it.  Still it was a matter of honour for us, that march was the final hurdle to jump, to pass the course.  Training is becoming easier and easier, I don‘t know if it‘s due to budget cutbacks or other reasons, but if it keeps up we are going to increasingly produce substandard troops from the QL3s.

Fideliter


----------



## 2 Charlie (11 Feb 2001)

Gunner,

Too expand our rhetoric between us.  I am not trying to state there is a plot.  My point at it‘s basic presntation is remiss to reiterate.  How do we expect legitimate change in the CF, when the top echelons have not changed pers wise dramatically in ten years.

We basically have the same people with the same concepts and the same operating principals in charge.  we have a society asking for change in how we do business.  I feel that the change is only half truths and as has been evidenced only short lived in most cases.

We have a group of new upstart leaders, but many are of the influence of the current HQ principes, so I am of the opinion that real change will not happen within the CF for a time to come.

Many of the real change issues have been levied or legislated from the outsdide, many for the betterment.  But real internal change and growth will not happen until our true inner vision at the top changes.


----------



## GPMG (12 Feb 2001)

Fusilier:

Your opinion is that current QL3s are producing substandard soldiers, but in what areas are they substandard? Although physical training standards may have been reduced, or dropped outright in the case of the ruckmarch; there is much more to being a good soldier than just being fit.

What about weapons handling skills and marksmanship? Have these been on the decline as well? Have personal fieldcraft suffered terribly also? 

Is it not likely that the rise in educational standard in general between soldiers of the past and those of today may give today‘s recruits greater ability to learn and understand their trade? Especially in fields such as tactics?

With a better understanding of their trade, and perhaps some initiative, these soldiers may be able to better deal with situations for which they are not trained for, such as those that they may encounter on peacekeeping operations.


----------



## fusilier (13 Feb 2001)

GPMG
In my opinion, we are not producing substandard troops YET, however if training keeps declining, we will.  Marksmanship, weapons handling and personal fieldcraft are mainly taught on the QL2 now.  I agree, a good soldier does‘nt just have to be in shape physically, but mentally as well.  However if troops don‘t do ruck marchs on QL3, they‘re not being prepared for what they will surely encounter upon beginning training with their units.  We might not do 13km ruck marchs all the time, but we, as light infantry, do ruck marchs of varying lengths frequently.  Therefore it is not far to the recruits, for they will be the ones who eventually suffer.

Fideliter


----------



## Mud Crawler (13 Feb 2001)

Even though no numbers were put on the number of medium to long ruck marchs per year or month,if it‘s as worse as you all say, I may have done more, longer ruck marchs when I was in the scout movement than I will in the army


----------



## Travis Silcox (18 Feb 2001)

Nah, Canada‘s military isn‘t unfit

It‘s all good

DUCIMUS
Pte. Silcox


----------



## RCA (19 Feb 2001)

From personal experience I know that the the QL2/3s in Shilo get good training.  They do do the ruck march and PT is part of the program every morning. They are CBed for the first month or so and dipline is tight. In the end WATC turns out a good "product" (God I hate that term). This is because theeris a dedicated staff in Shilo who follow TP and a standards cell that enforces standards. I also don‘t think it hurts that we are all in the same Regiment and maybe this is a factor.


----------



## Travis Silcox (21 Feb 2001)

Shilo sounds cool 

There telling me wainright, i‘m not sure if it‘s the same thing, but either way it should be alot of fun. 

DUCIMUS
Pte. Silcox


----------



## PatrickM (18 Apr 2005)

Holy thread resurrection batman!
This is what happens when you decide to work your way through the topics starting at the back I guess.  However I don't want to start a new topic because the argument is current and opinions are valid.  However, this topic is 3 1/2 yrs old, and enough time has passed to examine if there have been changes in the system (for better or for worse).
My personal opinion is that physical standards (especially in the Reserves, but not limited to them) are too low, and fail to develop a soldier's fitness to the point where he is fit enough to get the job done in adverse conditions.  For example, I'm in the militia myself.  I've been on BMQ/SQ, DP1 Arty, DP2 Arty Tech, plus comms/dvr whl.  I have NEVER been required  to complete the BFT.  Nor has PT  been evaluated on any course I have been on(N/A on all assessments).  This isn't to say we don't do the 45 min in the morning of PT, but it doesn't matter if you fall out or can't do it well.  My next course will hopefully be PLQ at some point, where I have recently found out that in the modular format, inspections only occur for certain mods, the rest of the time it's not important.  I'm not saying I love to receive c#@k, but I certainly expected plenty of it on a leadership course.  On all my previous courses, the pass rate has ranged from 90 - 100%, which I feel is too high, especially for basic courses.  I am limited to my own exp since I haven't taught any courses, but I would submit that if that is the case for the majority of basic courses then our training practices desperately need to be re-evaluated, regardless of the political needs placed on recruiting.

Cheers.


----------



## Gunner (18 Apr 2005)

Geez, I was pretty mouthy back then.  Sometimes these threads should stay in the graveyard.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Apr 2005)

Whither 2 Charlie?


----------



## GO!!! (18 Apr 2005)

The training standards have fallen in recent years. The quantifiable elements are well documented in this thread, and most of the commentators seem to agree on the major points. 

Perhaps more emphasis should be placed upon the units to train fit soldiers? 

3VP uses the Coopers test  - not a perfect test, but better than nothing. It is useful because you can track the progress of an individual over a length of time against a set standard and his peers. If the individual is not progressing, maybe he just needs to work in the Canteen unitil the end of his contract. No official action, just a discreet retasking. If he is progressing, good on ya, keep it up!

It is a matter of pride and discipline. The unit can enforce PT standards if the leadership has the requisite "parts", as long as there is a carrot and stick, and as long as the units training is sufficiently demanding that the troops worry about getting too out of shape.

I've done the BFT 3 times in a week and never had a problem (well, my feet hurt) It really needs to be more challenging. More weight over a longer distance would do the trick. 

As for "PT not being everything" well, that sounds like something the troops in PAT platoon spew. PT is the foundation of everything we do in the Infantry. The best shot in the world is useless if he passed out on the way to the battle! I've seen it on deployments where the "heavy" CSS types go down first with everything from twisted ankles to sore throats. The unfit are sickened and injured faster than the fit. 

Comments welcome.


----------



## Marty (18 Apr 2005)

CSS ?


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Apr 2005)

The US Marine Corps of all the services have avoided the PC trap. They have kept segregated BCT. This is something that the US Army needs to go back to [for non-combat arms soldiers].


----------



## GO!!! (19 Apr 2005)

CSS = Combat Service Support

Wogs to some of us, pogues to Americans and REMFs to all - get the picture?

Not to hammer the svc bn guys too much, but really, is there a PT standard for the non - cbt arms? Some of the people walking around edmonton make me wonder...


----------



## Gunner (19 Apr 2005)

> Whither 2 Charlie?



He was well before your time, youngster  .  He was pretty disruptive at times IIRC otherwise I would have been so forceful with him.  Everyone knows I'm the nice moderator!   ;D


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (19 Apr 2005)

Hasn't this horse died enough times on so many other threads?


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Not to hammer the svc bn guys too much, but really, is there a PT standard for the non - cbt arms? Some of the people walking around edmonton make me wonder...



come to Ottawa... some mbrs here double as anti-terrorism vehicle barriers...

I agree the BFT isn't challenging enough... more weight, longer distance and some hills are all good ideas...


----------



## devil39 (19 Apr 2005)

Different strokes for different folks.  For most of the Army the 13 km might cut it.

Dismounted or Light Infantry should pass the 32 km rucksack march (55 lbs) in 6.5 hours, just like the old days in 1 CMBG.  

If you want to equate physical fitness and readiness with a quantifiable standard.... 

32 km in 6.5 hrs in Canada is not unlike 8 km at 9,500 feet in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Our current standard of 13 km is way too low.. thankfully all professionals train above that.


----------



## TCBF (19 Apr 2005)

I was walking from C/S 4 back out to my Coyote at SW OP and there was part of 3VP with rucks on getting ready to emplane on some US Chinooks.  Who do I walk past but Ernie ______, the Mortar WO,almost as old as me, with a ruck the size of James Bay on his back, and 81mm ammo strapped to it.

I wished him good luck, and thought, "Man, the young'uns better not pack it in before HE does."

Tom


----------



## devil39 (20 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I was walking from C/S 4 back out to my Coyote at SW OP and there was part of 3VP with rucks on getting ready to emplane on some US Chinooks.   Who do I walk past but Ernie ______, the Mortar WO,almost as old as me, with a ruck the size of James Bay on his back, and 81mm ammo strapped to it.
> 
> I wished him good luck, and thought, "Man, the young'uns better not pack it in before HE does."
> 
> Tom



Exactly.


----------



## spenco (20 Apr 2005)

Maybe I'm showing my age (or lack thereof) but who is James Bay?


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Apr 2005)

Jame's Bay separates Ontario and Quebec in the North... it's Hudson's Bay's wang...


----------



## spenco (20 Apr 2005)

Ah ok now I feel stupid.  I was thinking that it was a really old fat celebrity or something.  Shoulda remembered my geography.   :blotto:


----------



## spenco (20 Apr 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Our current standard of 13 km is way too low.. thankfully all professionals train above that.



I thought that 13 km was the training standard for BMQ,  but infantry regiments had their own standards that were higher than that.  Is this what you are referring to?


----------



## GO!!! (20 Apr 2005)

Unfortunately, the term "standard" is batted around a little too freely.

Technically, if you can march 13km with 55lbs in 2hrs26min20sec. you have achieved the standard. Numbers might be a little off.

However, your CO/OC/Pl Comd can make you do whatever the hell he wants, and this often makes the standard seem laughable. There is no higher standard as far as the official "rules" are concerned for infantry though.

Realistically though, your reg force infantry unit will demand far more of you than the BFT and CF Express test.


----------



## bossi (20 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> ...As for "PT not being everything" well, that sounds like something the troops in PAT platoon spew. PT is the foundation of everything we do in the Infantry. The best shot in the world is useless if he passed out on the way to the battle! I've seen it on deployments where the "heavy" CSS types go down first with everything from twisted ankles to sore throats. The unfit are sickened and injured faster than the fit.
> 
> Comments welcome.



Unfortunately the only test for the inverse relationship between arrogance and maturity is called time ... ah, well ... it's nostalgic to hear the hollow rattle of urine and vinegar (some things never change ...).



> What can a soldier do who charges when out of breath?
> -- Vegetius:  De Re Militari, iii, 378





> Nations have passed away and left no traces,
> And history gives the naked cause of it -
> One single, simple reason in all cases,
> They fell because their peoples were not fit.
> -- Rudyard Kipling:  Land and Sea Tales for Scouts and Guides, 1923





> A man who takes a lot of exercise rarely exercises his mind adequately.
> -- B.H. Liddell Hart:  Thoughts on War, xi, 1944





> "The best form of 'welfare' for the troops is first-class training."
> -- Erwin Rommel;  Rommel Papers, ix, 1953





> Is it really true that a seven-mile cross-country run is inforced upon all in this division, from generals to privates? ... It looks to me rather excessive.  A colonel or a general ought not to exhaust himself in trying to compete with young boys running across country seven miles at a time.  The duty of officers is no doubt to keep themselves fit, but still more to think of their men, and to take decisions affecting their safety and comfort.  Who is the general of this division, and does he run the seven miles himself?  If so, he may be more useful for football than for war.  Could Napoleon have run seven miles across country at Austerlitz?  Perhaps it was the other fellow he made run.  In my experience, based on many years' observation, officers with high athletic qualifications are not usually successful in the higher ranks.
> Winston Churchill:  Note for the Secretary of State for War, 4 February 1944





> More brawn than brain.
> -- Cornelius Nepos:  Epamnondas, v, c. 75 B.C.


----------



## DogOfWar (20 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> CSS = Combat Service Support
> 
> Wogs to some of us, pogues to Americans and REMFs to all - get the picture?



you're quite enamoured with yourself arent you? Ive been working out at the Garrison when the infanteers come wandering through. They certainly dont exert themselves in the gym. Or perhaps I should bring up my last express test that I ran with 2 infanteers who gave up as soon as they hit the minimums for their age groups. Didnt seem to be a "matter of pride" to them. You have bags in every trade. Some of poor mind some of poor body.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Apr 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> you're quite enamoured with yourself arent you? Ive been working out at the Garrison when the infanteers come wandering through. They certainly dont exert themselves in the gym. Or perhaps I should bring up my last express test that I ran with 2 infanteers who gave up as soon as they hit the minimums for their age groups. Didnt seem to be a "matter of pride" to them. You have bags in every trade. Some of poor mind some of poor body.



No, no one has ever accused me of having low self - esteem. Get over it. 

The points I attempted to make were;

1) our current training standards for fitness are too low, they must be boosted and enforced, perhaps with a corresponding link to career progression. You can't lead from the rear, and lose a great deal of credibility with cbt arms soldiers if you lack the discipline to restrict your caloric intake and as a bare minimum, do some cardio 3-4 times a week.

2) As for GS Bn being, as a group, too fat? You are delusional as well as myopic if you can't see that - it's not even up for discussion. It's a fact.

3) Go ask a medic if being out of shape will make you more likely to get sick or injured. What did he say? Thought so. 

In regards to the brains over brawn issue, The last 2 COs' and a majority of the officers in 3VP have done the Mountain Man race at some time in the past, as do their troops. The third has won the major unit trophy what - 6 times now? And if we are all a bunch of arrogant fitness freaks, we must be doing something right, as all of the deployments seem to be coming our way. 

"The civilians today are saying that we should be making love, not war. We in the Airborne consider it our privilige to excel at both" 82nd airborne div Cdr


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2005)

> And if we are all a bunch of arrogant fitness freaks, we must be doing something right, as all of the deployments seem to be coming our way.



Oh, please stop...  This isn't true and you know it.  3VP hasn't been selected for deployment for any "particular" reason other than how it fits into the high readiness framework.

GO!! - you make some good points, but they're usually lost in your diatribes against other units, other trades, and/or other parts of the CF.  You are from an excellent unit, but it isn't the only combat effective one in the Army.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Apr 2005)

OK OK, I retract the implication that we get all the tours because our Bn, as a group is fitter. 

How about we replace the BFT with a real test of soldier skills, in addition to a serious physical challenge. Perhaps a Cambrian Patrol style of competition/evaluation, where there are various stands that must be tactically navigated to and successfully completed. Marksmanship, navigation, medical, bridging and other obstacles, comms, knots, unarmed combat, the possibilities are endless. 

If one wanted to make it trade specific, have a shorter one for svc trades, with stands relevant to their jobs / possible employment, but the major ones common to all. 

If one was to go really hardcore with it, the successful and ranked completion of the race could be tied to career progression as an identification of skills. (ie: you can't get Mastered on your PER/PDR if you tank the competition.

This would provide members with a positive, competitive method of determining their own level of skill progression against their peers, as well as providing an incentive to remain fit and current at all times.

Needless to say, this would have to be applied nationally and to all units for a real ranking of skills to be effective.

Any comments?


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> How about we replace the BFT with a real test of soldier skills, in addition to a serious physical challenge. Perhaps a Cambrian Patrol style of competition/evaluation, where there are various stands that must be tactically navigated to and successfully completed. Marksmanship, navigation, medical, bridging and other obstacles, comms, knots, unarmed combat, the possibilities are endless.
> 
> Any comments?



In preparation for Bosnia's Roto 13 in 2003, 23 Fd Sqn of the RCD Battle Group did something similar.  They interspersed their 13 Km BFT route with stand tests.  

The Army has taken a step towards raising the fitness bar in implementing the new Three Task Fitness Test.  The new portion is a simulated timed "trench dig" exercise. Not much, bit it is value added to the test.

Unfortunately one of the biggest hurdles has yet to be overcome and that is the settiing of standards for the Army Reserve, close to 50% of all Canadian Army soldiers.  Before anybody jumps on me, I know that, in theory at least, the Army reserve is supposed to meet the same standards as the Reg F.

The problem is twofold:

1. Army Reserve units are not funded to "do PT".  I know, it's up to the COs to decide how funds are spent in training, but there's never enough dollars to meet mandated training requirements plus fund courses and exercises as is.  COs everywhere have to decide what non-deliverables will get cut from the budget to meet the commander's intent.  Regular PT, or even the six week BFT workup program, are going to be on that list.

2. Reg F soldiers are paid for doing PT and covered in the event they get injured while doing PT, even on thier own time (providing a CF 279 was properly completed).  They should be covered, as this is part of the job.  The same could be said for the Class "A" Joe Army Reservist, who throws out his back BFT'ing on a Saturday morning with his unit buddies, on his own time, so he can go on PLQ.  But he's not.

In fact, he is Shyte out of Luck.

He's off work or out of school, he's off PLQ and he's out of pocket for all that and his medical expenses.  And he's not even getting paid!

Until the Army figures out a way to cover Reservists who want to and do train the body hard on their own time it's quite unreasonable to impose standards on them which could lead to the loss of thier civilian livelihood.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2005)

> OK OK, I retract the implication that we get all the tours because our Bn, as a group is fitter.



Ack.   On to the issue at hand:



> How about we replace the BFT with a real test of soldier skills, in addition to a serious physical challenge. Perhaps a Cambrian Patrol style of competition/evaluation, where there are various stands that must be tactically navigated to and successfully completed. Marksmanship, navigation, medical, bridging and other obstacles, comms, knots, unarmed combat, the possibilities are endless.



This IS a constructive suggestion - so constructive that it has, believe it or not, been tried before.   You may not have been around when the entire Army went through the so-called "Warrior" program.   For the uninitiated, this was an Army-wide individual evaluation that involved a small-arms test (C-7), fitness (3.2 km run in combats - with boots, helmet, weapon and webbing), and "basic" soldier skills (first aid, navigation, voice procedure, cam and concealment, etc..).   Every soldier - Reg and Res - was expected to pass the test and we all wore badges (gold, silver and bronze) to show how well we performed.   It only lasted a couple of years, largely because it was so time and resource intensive.   Besides, (IMHO) the combat arm guys found the "basic" skills a tad too "basic" and that being tested on them was a little demeaning as a result.

Basic skills and fitness should already form part of everyone's PER and PDR.   If it isn't there (at least in "Applies Job Knowlege"), there's something wrong.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## aesop081 (20 Apr 2005)

I remember the first year of the warrior program when it was just an LFCA thing.  Still have the little handbook with the camo cover.  It was a good idea but as mentioned, maybe a little too basic for the reg combat arms types.  The mag loading stand instantly comes to mind.  Even though in execution it didnt pan out well, the concept was there.  I fully agree that the 13km march is inadequate as a fitnesss test.  Why do w have to do work-ups for the BFT ?  IMHO, if it is a minimum standrd, you should be able to do it at any time.  I liked the old days where we would do the 13 km ruck march one day and do a 16 km webbing run/march the next, whith the 6 foot wall, the fireman;s carry and the "trench jump".


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Every soldier - Reg and Res - was expected to pass the test and we all wore badges (gold, silver and bronze) to show how well we performed.



Lots of folks jumped on the Warrior Badge bandwagon.  Not too long after the program fired up (within a couple of weeks), Reserve employment opportunity messages started to read "only members who have acheived the Gold Standard may apply."  Fair enough.  But most units hadn't even finished testing yet and not everyone can score Gold overnight.  I know some awesomely fit troops who can't hit a bull in the ass with a shovel, let alone a snap target at 300 metres.

It's more than fitness.  It's everything all taken together that makes or breaks a good soldier.


----------



## Strike (21 Apr 2005)

GO!!!

It all sounds like a good idea but with everyone being so busy keeping up their quals and doing all the other wonderful jobs they have to do (2ndary duties and such) who would have the time to plan such a monumental task, including the tests and trials to standardize and determine the levels required?

I nominate GO!!!  Have fun.   ;D ;D


----------



## COBRA-6 (21 Apr 2005)

The USMC seems able to test everyone's fitness and marksmanship level each year... it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a decent set of realistic standards... (marching with combat eqpt & loadout over a course with sufficient hills under a certain time, shooting at fixed and moving targets at known and unkown ranges etc...)


----------



## GO!!! (21 Apr 2005)

As for who would plan and organise this - there seem to be a large number of "under - employed" mbrs with two bars of equal size on their epaullettes. Perhaps Bde HQ could spare a few? They seem to leave at 1500 daily - so they must have time. >

I would gladly organise such a prgrm, if only I had the resources.

This program would replace all of the quals for the cbt arms, freeing up more time for other trg.

I will call it the "GO!!! forth and do army stuff test"

And "gold standard only may apply" is a great idea - for both reg and res soldiers, then you would see who was the most motivated on an individual basis - perhaps a better indicator than collective unit rankings.


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And "gold standard only may apply" is a great idea - for both reg and res soldiers, then you would see who was the most motivated on an individual basis - perhaps a better indicator than collective unit rankings.



Agreed... to a point.  By doing it this way you discriminate against and disqualify 2/3 of your soldiers.  Your profile indicates that you weren't around in the Warrior Program's heydey ('93 -'96 or so)so I'll toss in a bit of history.

Back in the day, not everyone could qualify "Gold", even in Reg F line units. First I have to point out that what we were testing in the Warrior Programme were generic soldier skills.  Nothing trade specific, just the basics.  Meeting the trade/unit Battle Task Standards took care of ther rest.

The two determining factors for the badges were marksmanship and fitness.  For a soldier who's an excellent shot but can't run to Gold standard, he can work on that on his own time (I knocked 6 minutes off my own time from year one to next.).  But a gazelle who can't shoot requires time and resources to be made available from his unit in order to improve.  That was one of the reasons the program was shelved.  It was very resource intensive.

A better way is "One Army - One Standard."  You either make it or you don't.  The trick here is finding a standard that is applicable to and attainable by all trades/ages. It's unrealistic to expect a 50 year old EME sergeant-major to meet the same fitness and shooting standards as a 20 year old paratrooper.


----------



## bossi (22 Apr 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ... The two determining factors for the badges were marksmanship and fitness.   ...  But a gazelle who can't shoot requires time and resources to be made available from his unit in order to improve.   That was one of the reasons the program was shelved.   It was very resource intensive.
> 
> A better way is "One Army - One Standard."   You either make it or you don't.   The trick here is finding a standard that is applicable to and attainable by all trades/ages. ...



Agreed - I noticed quite a few younger people grumbling about how it was unfair ... because they felt older people had an unfair advantage in marksmanship (oddly enough, these same people never felt if necessary to acknowledge us older folks who earned our gold badges ...).  Again, the culprit is urine and vinegar.

Badges aren't the "be all and end all" - some of us aren't allowed (by dress regulations) to wear the badge on our sleeve to prove we qualified "marksman" ... unlike some folks whose ego swells disproportionately when they get to sew on a bauble/trinket or wear pink headdress that doesn't even keep the rain or sun out of their eyes ...

_Demissos animo et tacitos vitare memento; 
Quod flumen placidum est, forsan latet altius unda._


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> The USMC seems able to test everyone's fitness and marksmanship level each year... it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a decent set of realistic standards...



I've seen this thought in a previous thread (old War Diary IIRC) on PT: "Let's make the standards tougher".  "Lets add this..."

My thought is that this stems from the belief that our standards are not tough enough as evidenced by the amount of SpandexPAT seen waddling around these days. (These are the same folks that don't remember (or care) that the narrow end of the rifle is the dangerous end.)  In fact, our standards are plenty tough for those who fear to attempt the test.  They dodge, get chits, find excuses, get tasked away, etc. at testing time.

Desigining and implementing standards takes time, effort and money away from other activities.  We already have the EXPRES Test, BFT, IBTS, BTSI, a myriad of CTSs, ELOC, MLOC, DLOC, TMST, Army Fitness Manual, JTF2 Coopers Test, Pre Para Fitness Test, Firefighters Fitness Test, etc. etc. as viable and achievable standards.   Instead of re-inventing the wheel we should re-double our efforts to test to and enforce the standards we already have, and universally at that.  Fund the training.  Provide the resources and facilities to train to the standard.

Are you a Reservist?  Same standard as your Reg F bretheren.  Worried about losing your civvy job if you get hurt?  Here's legislated pension and liability coverage for you when you train on your own.

One Army.
One Standard.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Apr 2005)

Haggis:

I couldn't agree more and was about to post the same thing.  We already have extensive standards, but routinely (for a variety of reasons) ignore them either individually or institutionally.  For instance, there is a PWT for all soldiers, but how many actually fire it every year??  Answer:  no time, no bullets, on and on...

Having said this, the bottom line is that individuals have to bear some responsibility for sorting out their own personal operational readiness, Reg or Res, CSS or Combat Arms...  As you say - One Army, One (achievable) Standard.

TR


----------



## paracowboy (22 Apr 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I've seen this thought in a previous thread (old War Diary IIRC) on PT: "Let's make the standards tougher".   "Lets add this..."
> 
> My thought is that this stems from the belief that our standards are not tough enough as evidenced by the amount of SpandexPAT seen waddling around these days. (These are the same folks that don't remember (or care) that the narrow end of the rifle is the dangerous end.)   In fact, our standards are plenty tough for those who fear to attempt the test.   They dodge, get chits, find excuses, get tasked away, etc. at testing time.
> 
> ...


what he said. (But with some vulgarity thrown in for colour.)


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> what he said. (But with some vulgarity thrown in for colour.)



Preach it bro...


----------

