# Whither our warriors?



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women has 
been instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.
a journalist
      
    
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.
Whither our warriors?
Critics say the lowering of fitness standards to accommodate women 
has been
instrumental in producing an army unsuited for soldiering.David
a journalist
  
  
  
    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. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Jason King" <jasonking@specialoperations.com>* on *Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:02:54 -0800*
Canada used to be able to say that even though we don‘t have the people or the technology, we still have a superior trained force. I guess not any more.
It makes no difference what men think of war. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting the ultimate practitioner.
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"OCdt Caylynn" <ocdt.caylynn@animail.net>* on *Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:49:52 -0500*
There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to physical 
fitness.
For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the PT test 
with flying colours.  Now, I have a friend, who is incredibly fit, 
and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a naturally high heart 
rate.  This is normal for her - she has a very healthy heart and is 
very fit.  But, physiologically, she has a higher heart rate than 
what is ‘normal‘.  So, she failed her PT test due to a high heart 
rate during the step test and didn‘t get in.  This is one very 
bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible asset to the 
Forces.  She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms.
On the other hand, my current supervisor spent 13 years in the 
Forces.  Once he graduated from Mil. College, he never had to take 
another PT test!
To me, that just seems stupid.
My friend, an incredibly fit individual, couldn‘t get into the 
Forces, yet there are people walking around in uniform who aren‘t 
even half as fit as she is.  Something is definitely wrong with the 
system.
Care2 make the world greener !
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Jean-F Menicucci <menicucci@videotron.ca>* on *Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:50 -0500*
Similar for me, everytime I did my PT test, I was nervous like **** 
so heart rate increased, and blood pressure.
First time I did PT test I failed because of my heart rate, then I worked
with a maniac on my cardio
and went back, but failed again dued to a cramps and I can go on
......... LOL anyway
But one of my problem, is that my weigh is heavier compared to all the
normal soldier
im 6‘2" 310lbs at 16 body fat, do the math Im a weightlifter, power
lifter and I play University football,
my cardio is quite good and I never had any problems running the field,
5-6km when it requied in practice
but everytime they do the PT test they take my weigh and I have to get a
lower heart rate that everyone
because of my weigh bring a failure to it.
a long time ago I was chatting with a Captain about this, ended up that
with a Yes Sir for his theory.
If someone we take W and Y, W is 250 lbs and Y is 175lbs. they are
identical twins, we put them
in the same exact conditions, with the same results at the end, W will
fail and Y will pass,
but if W scored the same heart rate has Y who is the fittest????!!!!!!!
When I asked that and I said that, they dont me * OH SHUT UP*
But anyway thanx I failed that tests, because I was applying for 031, but
then for many reasons
I went 023 :
Better change? I dont know I love school too much now
Oh a question.
Since I started University, I discovered that I like that, and im
thinking about a MA and maybe a PHD
but I also like the military too much and im not considering the reserve
in the future.
I wanna know what are my chances to obtain these degree while in the
forces?
I know some did it like Major Last at the RMC, where he teach...
But I have to see that LOL........... still have some roads to do first..
Jeff
OCdt Caylynn wrote:
> There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to physical
> fitness.
>
> For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the PT test
> with flying colours.  Now, I have a friend, who is incredibly fit,
> and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a naturally high heart
> rate.  This is normal for her - she has a very healthy heart and is
> very fit.  But, physiologically, she has a higher heart rate than
> what is ‘normal‘.  So, she failed her PT test due to a high heart
> rate during the step test and didn‘t get in.  This is one very
> bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible asset to the
> Forces.  She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms.
>
> On the other hand, my current supervisor spent 13 years in the
> Forces.  Once he graduated from Mil. College, he never had to take
> another PT test!
>
> To me, that just seems stupid.
>
> My friend, an incredibly fit individual, couldn‘t get into the
> Forces, yet there are people walking around in uniform who aren‘t
> even half as fit as she is.  Something is definitely wrong with the
> system.
>
> Care2 make the world greener !
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Adam Wainwright" <ajmw@home.com>* on *Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0800*
I totally agree that the fitness is really key.  I often say this, but again
look over the pond!  If some of you have ever talked to or worked with some
Brits.  Even read Bravo 2 zero or immediate action are good examples.  They
FIGHT that is the key so they realize what it takes to fight.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "OCdt Caylynn"
        To:
        Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:49 PM
        Subject: Re: Whither our warriors?
        > For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the PT test
        > with flying colours. Now, I have a friend, who is incredibly fit,
        > and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a natu! rally high
heart
        > rate. This is normal for her - she has a very healthy heart and is
        > very fit. But, physiologically, she has a higher heart rate than
        > what is 'normal'. So, she failed her PT test due to a high heart
        > rate during the step test and didn't get in. This is one very
        > bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible asset to
the
        > Forces. She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms.
        _____________________________________________________________
        Get email for your site --->  http://www.everyone.net 
  -------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: To remove
yourself from this list, send a message to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the
account you wish to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
I totally agree that the fitness 
is really
key. I often say this, but again look over the pond! If some 
of you
have ever talked to or worked with some Brits. Even read Bravo 2 
zero or
immediate action are good examples. They FIGHT that is the key so 
they
realize what it takes to fight.

-----
        Original Message ----- From: "OCdt Caylynn"
        To: 
Sent:
        Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:49 PMSubject: Re: Whither our
        warriors?gt For example, to get into the Forces, 
you need
        to pass the PT test gt with flying colours. Now, I have a 
friend,
        who is incredibly fit, gt and is an aerobics instructor, 
but she
        has a natu! rally high heart gt rate. This is normal for 
her - she
        has a very healthy heart and is gt very fit. But, 
physiologically,
        she has a higher heart rate than gt what is 'normal'. So, 
she
        failed her PT test due to a high heart gt rate during the 
step
        test and didn't get in. This is one very gt bright, very 
fit woman
        who would have been an incredible asset to the gt Forces. 
She
        wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat
        
Arms._______________________________________________________


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Nick Butler" <absolut_nick@hotmail.com>* on *Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:02:31 -0500*
Go read Peter Radcliffe's 22 SAS's RSM book Eye of the Storm so you can find out what a pack of liars "Chris Ryan", "Andy McNab", "Cameron Spence", "Mike Yorkland", and others who write about their SAS experience are. It's quite interesting, after I read his book, I read Bravo Two Zero and The One That Got Away together at the same time, and it's interesting how much they contradict each other... you also come to notice that the most fantastic tales occur conveniently when there is no one to collaborate them.
The SAS, however, remains a force to be reckoned with, but when it comes to those books, caveat emptor.I do have to agree though, the politically expedient process of glossing of the purpose of a military to make it look kinder and gentler and what have you is doing no service to those who serve. Setting ridiculous standards for good PR is a ridiculous plan doomed to fail and threaten the entire existance and purpose of the Armed Forces.
$0.02...
Paratus,
Nick Butler
gtFrom: "Adam Wainwright" 
gtReply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca 
gtTo: 
gtSubject: RE: Whither our Warriors 
gtDate: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0800 
gt 
gtI totally agree that the fitness is really key. I often say this, but again 
gtlook over the pond! If some of you have ever talked to or worked with some 
gtBrits. Even read Bravo 2 zero or immediate action are good examples. They 
gtFIGHT that is the key so they realize what it takes to fight. 

gt ----- Original Message ----- 
gt From: "OCdt Caylynn" 
gt To: 
gt Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:49 PM 
gt Subject: Re: Whither our warriors? 
gt 
gt 
gt gt For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the PT test 
gt gt with flying colours. Now, I have a friend, who is incredibly fit, 
gt gt and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a natu! rally high 
gtheart 
gt gt rate. This is normal for her - she has a very healthy heart and is 
gt gt very fit. But, physiologically, she has a higher heart rate than 
gt gt what is 'normal'. So, she failed her PT test due to a high heart 
gt gt rate during the step test and didn't get in. This is one very 
gt gt bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible asset to 
gtthe 
gt gt Forces. She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Todd Harris" <harris@nortelnetworks.com>* on *Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:18:03 -0500*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Do you have the ISBN number?  I tried to find the book at Chapter's with no
luck.

Thanx

Todd Harris 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Butler [mailto:absolut_nick@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 02:03
To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
Subject: RE: Whither our Warriors
Go read Peter Radcliffe's 22 SAS's RSM book Eye of the Storm so you can
find out what a pack of liars "Chris Ryan", "Andy McNab", "Cameron Spence",
"Mike Yorkland", and others who write about their SAS experience are.  It's
quite interesting, after I read his book, I read Bravo Two Zero and The One
That Got Away together at the same time, and it's interesting how much they
contradict each other... you also come to notice that the most fantastic
tales occur conveniently when there is no one to collaborate them.
The SAS, however, remains a force to be reckoned with, but when it comes to
those books, caveat emptor.
I do have to agree though, the politically expedient process of glossing of
the purpose of a military to make it look kinder and gentler and what have
you is doing no service to those who serve.  Setting ridiculous standards
for good PR is a ridiculous plan doomed to fail and threaten the entire
existance and purpose of the Armed Forces.
$0.02...
Paratus,
Nick Butler
>From: "Adam Wainwright" 
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca 
>To: 
>Subject: RE: Whither our Warriors 
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0800 
> 
>I totally agree that the fitness is really key. I often say this, but again
>look over the pond! If some of you have ever talked to or worked with some 
>Brits. Even read Bravo 2 zero or immediate action are good examples. They 
>FIGHT that is the key so they realize what it takes to fight. 

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "OCdt Caylynn" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:49 PM 
> Subject: Re: Whither our warriors? 
> 
> 
> > For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the PT test 
> > with flying colours. Now, I have a friend, who is incredibly fit, 
> > and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a natu! rally high 
>heart 
> > rate. This is normal for her - she has a very healthy heart and is 
> > very fit. But, physiologically, she has a higher heart rate than 
> > what is 'normal'. So, she failed her PT test due to a high heart 
> > rate during the step test and didn't get in. This is one very 
> > bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible asset to 
>the 
> > Forces. She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms. 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________ 
> Get email for your site --->  http://www.everyone.net  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: To remove 
>yourself from this list, send a message to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the 
>account you wish to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the 
>message body. 
  _____  
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com 
 .
-------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: To remove
yourself from this list, send a message to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the
account you wish to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body. 
Do you have the ISBN number? I tried to find the 
book at Chapter's with no luck.
Thanx
Todd Harris 
  -----Original Message-----From: Nick Butler 
  [mailto:absolut_nick@hotmail.com]Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 
  02:03To: army-list@CdnArmy.caSubject: RE: Whither our 
  Warriors
  
  Go read Peter Radcliffe's 22 SAS's RSM book Eye of the Storm so 
  you can find out what a pack of liars "Chris Ryan", "Andy McNab", "Cameron 
  Spence", "Mike Yorkland", and others who write about their SAS experience 
  are. It's quite interesting, after I read his book, I read Bravo Two 
  Zero and The One That Got Away together at the same time, and it's interesting 
  how much they contradict each other... you also come to notice that the most 
  fantastic tales occur conveniently when there is no one to collaborate 
  them.
  The SAS, however, remains a force to be reckoned with, but when it comes to 
  those books, caveat emptor.I do have to agree though, the politically 
  expedient process of glossing of the purpose of a military to make it look 
  kinder and gentler and what have you is doing no service to those who 
  serve. Setting ridiculous standards for good PR is a ridiculous plan 
  doomed to fail and threaten the entire existance and purpose of the Armed 
  Forces.
  $0.02...
  Paratus,
  Nick Butler
  
  gtFrom: "Adam Wainwright" 
  gtReply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca 
  gtTo: 
  gtSubject: RE: Whither our Warriors 
  gtDate: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0800 
  gt 
  gtI totally agree that the fitness is really key. I often say 
  this, but again 
  gtlook over the pond! If some of you have ever talked to or 
  worked with some 
  gtBrits. Even read Bravo 2 zero or immediate action are good 
  examples. They 
  gtFIGHT that is the key so they realize what it takes to fight. 

  gt 
  gt 
  gt ----- Original Message ----- 
  gt From: "OCdt Caylynn" 
  gt To: 
  gt Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:49 PM 
  gt Subject: Re: Whither our warriors? 
  gt 
  gt 
  gt gt For example, to get into the Forces, you need to pass the 
  PT test 
  gt gt with flying colours. Now, I have a friend, who is 
  incredibly fit, 
  gt gt and is an aerobics instructor, but she has a natu! rally 
  high 
  gtheart 
  gt gt rate. This is normal for her - she has a very healthy 
  heart and is 
  gt gt very fit. But, physiologically, she has a higher heart 
  rate than 
  gt gt what is 'normal'. So, she failed her PT test due to a 
  high heart 
  gt gt rate during the step test and didn't get in. This is one 
  very 
  gt gt bright, very fit woman who would have been an incredible 
  asset to 
  gtthe 
  gt gt Forces. She wanted to be a Nurse, btw, not Combat Arms.


----------

