# How do we compare physically?



## orange.paint (17 Jul 2006)

For the past little while I've been thinking of how I perceive others army's from my past experience.I have always thought that as Canadians we were quite obese in comparasion to our neighbours the US or Britain.

After doing a little searching I'm surprised to find almost EVERY protection organisation (police,firefighters,army) are having problems with the "Nintendo generation" joining and the baby boomers just leaving.Meaning the youth are joining chubby due to a lack lifestyle (due to dirty hippy parents in my opinion..another rant) and the baby boomers....well their getting old and gravity is taking over.


I have noticed that ALL other organisations I have found reporting the problem, also Implemented strictly enforced guidelines to prevent this deadly disease.

-The Philippines 117,700 police force has 6 months to reduce waistlines to 34" or face dismissal

-Thailand Armed Forces facing same problem as us will enforce basically same policy as Canada,no career progression.

-(my favorite) US army will not post obese pers during probation period to any schools.

-US army recruitment centers don't leave it up to the schools to get the members in shape,they provide PT every morning for future troops who are out of shape. Good idea in my books.

-In 2003 alone, more than 3,000 people were kicked out of all branches of the military for failing weight standards, Bathalon’s study reports.(USA military) 

-British army loosens BMI to accept less than fit soldiers.
(maybe going to a more Canadian system?...should we call and warn them!)


One thing I found interesting was something I never heard of before.The US army has a  "coy fitness NCO" to perform PT and make sure larger troops are making right eating decisions.

So maybe its not just us......

And to finish in another rant,CDS wants to get his army in shape as we all know.

-As a one income family I dam near break my bank every two months on running shoes (little less than 200 per pair).Why not implement an allowance for fitness of the individual soldier?Or better yet get proper running shoes (all brands) coolmax shirts,and other fitness gear placed on logisticcorp.No reason why we shouldn't have access to this.

And before someone jumps all over it quoting budgets etc,obesity costs our medical system a lot of monetary funds,think of it as preventative spending.

have fun

some links

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8423112/

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/04/thailand.fatsoldiers/

http://www.army.mil/soldiers/april95/p31.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4592230.stm


----------



## Cpl4Life (17 Jul 2006)

I don't agree in min waist sizes or keeping "obese" people out of schooling etc. I could be considered obese yet I am in decent physical condition, I only have my physical testing every two years but excel every time.  I am 6'1 and 215 lbs which is considered overweight.  (ok maybe not obese but certainly overweight).  My pant size is a 34" waist, and I have a few civvy 36" as well depending on the cut.

I keep myself in shape, I run almost daily, cycle to work, participate in PT every chance I get, and eat reasonably well.  I love that my job encourages me to stay physically active, and actually pays me my wage while I'm exercising.  Not many jobs that do that, even RCMP members I know have to work out on their lunch hours or after work.  We are very lucky in the CF in this regard and I wish everyone would take advantage of this.

On the other hand, it bothers me seeing guys walking around the air base I am training at with huge beer guts, looking like they are 8 months pregnant.  It really makes the CF look bad.  I bet for every one obese soldier the public sees they see 50 or more in shape soldiers, but what soldier will they remember?  You got it.

And why isn't PT compulsory for all trades?  If you have a medical condition usually there's at least SOMETHING physical you can do  to improve your health so I don't buy that "I have a medical condition" CRAP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2006)

Careful where this one goes. It has fairly narrow lanes set in the first post. People will start to go off into areas we've covered extensivley, numerous times, before. If it goes off track into those areas again, it'll be locked down. Fair warning, no second grace.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Jul 2006)

Cpl4Life said:
			
		

> And why isn't PT compulsory for all trades?  If you have a medical condition usually there's at least SOMETHING physical you can do  to improve your health so I don't buy that "I have a medical condition" CRAP.



I'll give you an example.  At my squadron, we have pilots flying at 0600 in the morning, 0900, 1100, find an hour an somebody will be flying...  It's impossible to organise squadron sports because of everybody's schedule.  Also, pilots MUST have a 12 hrs rest between the end of a workday and a flight.  

Also, there are 3 technical crew shifts (morning, afternoon, evening) and they have a LOT of job to do to keep those aircraft flying.  I have hard time to imagine the Sgt explaining to the CO that an aircraft couldn't be made serviceable because we had PT to do.  Operations are more important than group PT.

That beeing said, it doesn't excuse out of shape people.  Everybody should take the time to exercise every day or at least every couple of days.  It doesn't have to be with the unit and it doesn't need to be at the military gym.  And yes, it pisses me off seeing the same MCpl every day going all the way to the other end of the hangar to take the elevator even though there is a set of stairs right beside her office (which is only to the first floor by the way...)

Max


----------



## Haggis (17 Jul 2006)

In 2002 I was the Sgt Maj of a Canadian contingent in the Republic of Georgia (for those who can't find it, go to Chechnya and turn south).  There were sixteen national contingents from both eastern and western Europe as well as Canada and the US, working together as a multi-national infantry battalion.

The Canadian contingent was, for the most part, made up of Reservists.  All-in-all they were head and shoulders above most others in terms of fitness, with the exception of the Brits (on par) and a bit behind the Americans (who were mostly Army Rangers/SF types).  That being said, the Georgians had some *ahem* "inventive" PT regimens.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jul 2006)

Cpl4Life said:
			
		

> And why isn't PT compulsory for all trades?  If you have a medical condition usually there's at least SOMETHING physical you can do  to improve your health so I don't buy that "I have a medical condition" CRAP.



I'm glad you're an uberfitt supertrupper, keep up the good work, hero. I hope you never sustain an injury that could end your career, because then you would have to listen to sanctimonious dogshitt like you just spewed all over my screen.  I injured my back on duty, and took 7 months to learn to walk upright again.  I have not been able to run more than a klick and a half since, without retiring to the hottub and dropping Motrin like pez.  So, yes, "I have a medical condition."  Wanna compare CVs?  Any time you like...

Rant off, apologies to those that matter, get stuffed to those who don't.


----------



## orange.paint (17 Jul 2006)

Haggis thats amasing,as I said earlier just when you think other countries are way ahead...


Good stuff to those that were there from canada.

Anyone see this from an outside point of view?i.e other countries


----------



## Scott (17 Jul 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm glad you're an uberfitt supertrupper, keep up the good work, hero. I hope you never sustain an injury that could end your career, because then you would have to listen to sanctimonious dogshitt like you just spewed all over my screen.  I injured my back on duty, and took 7 months to learn to walk upright again.  I have not been able to run more than a klick and a half since, without retiring to the hottub and dropping Motrin like pez.  So, yes, "I have a medical condition."  Wanna compare CVs?  Any time you like...
> 
> Rant off, apologies to those that matter, get stuffed to those who don't.



+ 1 Kat, I am right with you. I've been hurt as a firefighter and may end up taking some of those injuries with me when I retire a long time from now, it sucks knowing that but I hope that I will be lucky. Guess you don't have that issue Cpl4Life sitting on the top floor of that glass house.

Consider yourself warned to wind your neck in.

I'm not arguing that there are some slugs out there who play the system, there are everywhere and I have worked with a few myself. Let's just avoid bashing everyone, there are guys who are genuinely frigged up, they got that way on the job so have some bloody respect for that.

Edited to add: Back on track, read again what recceguy said. Thanks


----------



## Cpl4Life (17 Jul 2006)

Sorry, will pm to Kat to keep on topic.

Cpl4Life


----------



## kincanucks (18 Jul 2006)

39 pages of "I am so much better than you" and "Look I saw an obese soldier today" tripe (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37780.0.html) and now it starts all over again.  There must be a better place for rcac_011 to brag about his physical fitness accomplishments.  Worse than an ex-smoker going on how bad smoking is for you.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Jul 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> 39 pages of "I am so much better than you" and "Look I saw an obese soldier today" tripe (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37780.0.html) and now it starts all over again.  There must be a better place for rcac_011 to brag about his physical fitness accomplishments.  Worse than an ex-smoker going on how bad smoking is for you.



 :rofl:

best bithday gift I could get kincanucks cheers!

dileas

tess


----------



## orange.paint (18 Jul 2006)

Kincanucks I looked back through this post and seen nothing of myself or pointing out certain fat personell in this army.

And before you jump all over me for being "like a ex smoker" maybe check out your own posts.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25733/post-154497.html#msg154497

Apparently the mod squad are playing the pm game to run it off the rails,success!

Cheers to haggis for at least one good post.

happy birthday John


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Apparently the mod squad are playing the pm game to run it off the rails,success!
> 
> Cheers to haggis for at least one good post.
> 
> happy birthday John




Yes,

Due to our envy, We do it to undermine the brilliance of your message ....

and thanks, I will definately hoist one in your honour...

Mod squad... :rofl:  it gets better with every post...

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Kincanucks I looked back through this post and seen nothing of myself or pointing out certain fat personell in this army.



Not this one but almost every other you've done.



> And before you jump all over me for being "like a ex smoker" maybe check out your own posts.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25733/post-154497.html#msg154497



He's certainly not being a zealot about it. Two posts, one saying he quit and another pointing at incorrect spelling. Oops, your conspiracy is starting to fall apart.



> Apparently the mod squad are playing the pm game to run it off the rails,success!



Now if you want this off the rails, you just did it. Making unsubstantiated remarks and accusations against the Staff, AND GUIDELINES. Guess what, you're up to the top off the ladder right now. The statement you just made can get you banned. The only PM game being played was initiated, with the smug, condescending post, by you to me. I chose to ignore your childish attitude in it and I instructed you what to do to perpetuate your thread. That has been the only PM's on the subject. Your really not that very important to us for us to mount a conspiracy, and we don't have those. We may huddle to decide how to handle a troublemaker, but that's where it stops.

I suggest you reel in your neck, and see if you can salvage your dignity and your thread. I'm not going to tolerate it or you much longer.



> Cheers to haggis for at least one good post.



It's up to you to see if you can generate enough interest and THOUGHTFUL dialogue to make this work. As been stated, most people feel it's been beat to death, ground into the gravel and powerwashed down the driveway. You only have a small window of opportunity here.



> happy birthday John



I'm sure he appreciates your sincerity.

 One last thing, as noted above, you are completely out of chances. I'd be very careful how i word anything from this point on, if I were you. Next infraction, of any sort, and your out the door. No warning, no debate.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Cheers to haggis for at least one good post.



Are you saying my other 610 posts were crap???   :threat:

Yes, Happy Birthday, Tess. May you have to endure many more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

OK everyone. Let's give rcac_011 the benefit of the doubt, and minimum of excuses. 

Post in this thread, ONLY, if you have something tangible to the original post, something that hasn't been stated before, on one of the other threads on the fitness subject.

I'll leave it for rcac_011 to post his own parameters on how and what he wants discussed. However, at this point, with his accusations etc. we don't need to give him any excuse as to why this failed.


----------



## orange.paint (18 Jul 2006)

Alright back on topic here.
parameters

-no complaining of fred mcfatty at work or personal "what I do"stories to stay fit
-Personal stories of how we compare to resemble haggis post earlier on.

I have to say I voted that we were a little below other countries we worked with.The serbs that came to compete in a competition with us were in amasing condition,Bosnians although appeared kinda chunky were also in great shape.

Gurkas were amasing in my books.
I really felt we placed just below,but not far.
Anyone care to give examples as to why they voted they way they did?


----------



## Fusaki (18 Jul 2006)

Here's a personal story (well, sort of).

In early 2005 the guys in my platoon would make the trip from Camp Julien to Kabul International Airport from time to time on tasking. There would always be other contingents around the airport waiting for their flights, or getting ready to head out to other camps. A MCPL in my platoon was once approached by a guy from the French Foreign Legion, starting up a conversation that went something like this:

FFL guy (smiling): Hello 

MCPL: How's it going?

FFL guy (with a French Accent): You have some big people in the Canadian Army 

MCPL (smiling): Well, we have a pretty good gym at the camp there and allot of us work out (This MCPL is into bodybuilding - well cut and muscled)

FFL guy: Noooooo, no, no, no, BIG people (as he holds his hands out to his sides indicating fatness)

Then some other FFL guys come over with their digital cameras and start showing off the photos they snapped of this fat trucker we nicknamed "Polly Pringles". There she was, digitally preserved, walking out of the KIA Pizzeria - with 1 hot pie in each hand - waddling back to her Bison. The Foreign Legion had a good laugh, and the MCPL couldn't really do much besides shake his head in disgust. What a fucking embarrassment.



Edit by Mod- respect the thread parameters. Your comments were covered previously in other threads.


----------



## orange.paint (18 Jul 2006)

Cheers for the story wonderbread
believe me I could rant on all day about certain individuals but I have prior on other posts ending in lock outs.

Good story to illustrate though.Compared to Haggis it seems quite different,maybe haggis hand picked his guys for Georgia? ;D

So compared to FFL some  of our css guys are we shall say "below par"Sounds a lot like the serbians impression of us in Bosnia.

any more stories?good or bad.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

I'm also not going to spend all my time babysitting this thread. If the users can't follow some simple rules, it'll be locked.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2006)

We're not alone in having "large" troops .  Speaking of Bosnia, here's a couple of British soldiers at BLMF, in the Serb area, in '04.

Love that baby blue!


----------



## orange.paint (18 Jul 2006)

Lol haggis....snap that pic for quiet time back in the tent? ;D j/k

Anyway it would be nice to see how other countries precieve us canadians.

trp hale?

all our usmc guys?


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Jul 2006)

Ever eat in a French mess hall?  Mystery solved.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Lol haggis....snap that pic for quiet time back in the tent? ;D j/k



No, the OC dared me to.  ;D
(Last time he ever did that!)

(Edited by Haggis in an attempt to keep this on topic.)


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

still not remaining within the arcs as outlined by the thread-starter, people. At least, what I think he meant.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> still not remaining within the arcs as outlined by the thread-starter, people. At least, what I think he meant.



Arcs?? This thread is a WMD!!!

US ration portions are 20% smaller than ours.  Threrfore one could extrapolate that US troops are, by consequence, 20% lighter/fitter/thinner?  So???  Take some good ol' boy from Alabama, strap his *** to a toboggan in Nunavut and see, FER SHER, how we stack up.  Conversely, take some hoser (eh!) from North Bay, drop him in Ft. Polk Louisiana, in July, and see how long he lasts.

This thread, like all others about fit/fat soldiers, is bound to swing back and forth between international anecdotes and penis comparison.

Arcs, indeed!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

Haggis,

Refer to the previous posts please. Your tightening the noose on the neck of this thing.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2006)

Time for me to step back from this one, recceguy...

Para:  I'm not pissed at you, just at where these threads usually go.  Not a nice place to visit.

 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Time for me to step back from this one, recceguy...
> 
> Para:  I'm not pissed at you, just at where these threads usually go.  Not a nice place to visit.
> 
> :



Which is why is has such a tight lane. Thanks.


----------



## edmjay (18 Jul 2006)

I'm not sure how many people watch the PR stuff on the DND website, so some of you may have seen this. I thought I'd add this link as it pertains to the thread's topic. It would appear someone in the CF figures our soldiers are doing pretty well, but again, I take it with a "PR spin" size grain of salt.

J

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=1154


----------



## Trooper Hale (19 Jul 2006)

The level of fitness over here is quite good i've found. Its pretty similier to back home really. I have a theory that PT only gives a base of fitness to work with, its a good base mind you, but your not going to win any body building comps after going to the Regi gym 3 times a week.
Our BFA (basic Fitness Assesment) for a 19 yr old is 50 push ups, 100 sit ups and 2.4km in under 12ish. I dont know what the Canadian one is like but if you look after yourself thats not exactly a big challenge for someone to get through.
I'd say that Canadian soldiers compare to Australians although (and this could just be a little bit of bias) we are a bit fitter (with the exception of myself!).
All in all its seems very similiar.


----------



## c4th (16 Aug 2006)

Could we be fitter?  Of course.  I think we may often make the mistake of comparing in it's entirety, our small military with the combat arms, specifically the infantry and or the SF of the US and the UK.  Ech trades don't have or really require the same levels of fitness that should be automatic in the Cbt Arms.

I am currently wrapping up an international course for infantry/sf/recce run by the Brits.  The UK certainly has the exact same complaints about fitness that we have in the CF, and their military is on average about 10 years younger than ours.  My fellow Canadians on course were in equal or better shape than any of the other 92 candidates.  My observation is that we are at least from an infantry standpoint, clearly better at carrying weight over distance.

Comparing Cdn MOC to foreign MOC may paint a less bleak picture.  However, those who are an obvious drain on the CADPAT supply had better be bringing something else to the table.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Aug 2006)

From my experiences, in comparing our pointy end units to other countries' we are on par with our NATO allies. Different areas of concentration for sure, as we seem to have a running fetish while many units (in the US for example) prefer calisthenics.

I would give us a slight edge in the endurance aspects (running/humping).


----------



## Armymedic (16 Aug 2006)

I believe that when comparing respective areas ie. infantry, other cbt arms and CSS, of fitness with other army's level of fitness we fair well. I think our Cbt arms are comparable, but it is our CSS troops where our level is less then others, in particular when comparing the USMC or the British to our forces.

If you want to compare fitness testing standards, I find ours is below those from the US forces.


----------



## Steve726 (12 Apr 2016)

Gday, Canadians.

I'm not a Canadian Soldier but i am a Soldier in a Commonwealth country. Any way, i was just looking up the fitness standards and basic training for different countries, and i found Canada's. I dont mean to be a dick but... its nothing... Don't get me wrong i'm not starting a crap fight it doesn't matter what country you're with we all put our hands up and volunteered for this crap and we all watch each others backs.  

What i want to know is why its so low? is there a particular reason? for comparison sake.  

Canada's fitness standards: 

Pushups 19
Sit ups 19
2.4 k run 11:50 something 

My countries fitness standards:

Push ups 45 (will get yelled at for anything less than 60) 
Sit ups 80 (will get yelled at for anything less than 100) 
2.4k run 11:18 (you will have to provide a please explain for anything over 10:30 and probably be forced to report to a PTI to get your fitness up)

I also watched a series the CA Army did about basic training, and i have to admit its kinda luxurious... From what i cam make out, you guys get to go home on week ends, you don't really get corrected that much, (yelled at) you get more privileges, you don't get beasted, don't have collective punishment. (i.e some one ****s up the entire platoon suffers for it) And you guys appear to be able to back chat staff without any real consequences. (a rec was talking while being corrected and like nothing happened... our basic training she would have had 3 CPLs in her face then probably charged by the Platoon Commander for insubordination) 

Once again, for comparison in 14 weeks, we got maybe a total of 8 ish hours local leave, and only the last month of basic we got week ends off, to socialise and go to the on base cinema. We could only use our phones on week ends, and time was so strict, you often had to choose between having a smoke or going to the toilet, like it was dead set that strict. 

So yeah i'm just wondering why Canada is like that? i don't get it... it just have a feeling of... overly PC or something


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

So, are you looking for a d*** measuring contest about how hard your training was? If you were honestly curious about the standards, you worded it pretty poorly.

Just for reference, most of the real soldiers/sailors/airmen think our PT standards are a joke as well.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Apr 2016)

This is just my 2 cents worth...

1.  You hit the nail on the head.  I don't think many of us "older folks" would disagree with you on that one, about things becoming overly PC.

2.  For the regular force BMQ, I believe you are stuck at recruit school for the duration of training.  For the reserves, some of their basic courses are run on the weekends, so they can focus on the more intensive training during the summer months.

3.  This is a bit of a long one...and I'm certainly open to being corrected if I am wrong.  But my thinking is:

-  BMQ (basic military qualifications) is made relatively easy, because they focus on the most basic of the basic.  Uniforms, drill, basic rifle handling, rank structure, etc.  This course is for all military members, regardless of whether someone is going infantry, or is going to be a drummer in a pipe band.

-  Once a recruit completes BMQ, they progress to the next level of their training which is far more specific to their trade - and that training is far more demanding and brutal than what BMQ was, depending on the trade.

-  For example - someone becoming an infantry soldier will have a very high quality of training, and a very demanding course.  Someone who is joining to be a supply clerk, or dental assistant, would move on to the next level of their respective training, which would be far different.

**To summarize - BMQ is relatively easy, and everybody has to go through it.  Once that is done, recruits will endure more aggressive courses depending on their trade.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2016)

Steve726 said:
			
		

> ... From what i cam make out, you guys get to go home on week ends ...


FYI, if people were home _every_ weekend, you _may_ have been watching Reserve troops training.  We don't have job protection legislation in Canada, like some Commonwealth countries, so it would be hard for part-time troops to get time off for a significant stretch of full-time recruit training.

Have to agree with PuckChaser ...


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you were honestly curious about the standards, you worded it pretty poorly.


----------



## Loachman (12 Apr 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> someone becoming an infantry soldier will have a very high quality of training, and a very demanding course.  Someone who is joining to be a supply clerk, or dental assistant, would



have a very low quality of training?


----------



## Steve726 (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So, are you looking for a d*** measuring contest about how hard your training was? If you were honestly curious about the standards, you worded it pretty poorly.
> 
> Just for reference, most of the real soldiers/sailors/airmen think our PT standards are a joke as well.



mate calm down... my countries training is far from the hardest the UK standard's are even harder i believe (fitness and drill is much more strict)


----------



## Brasidas (12 Apr 2016)

Steve726 said:
			
		

> Gday, Canadians.
> 
> I'm not a Canadian Soldier but i am a Soldier in a Commonwealth country...



Good day.

And your experience with courses and physical fitness standards outside of recruit training within your country is?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

You have our old standard. Our new one is much weaker. However, it apparently is legally defensible so we can boot people who can't do it.

We have an issue with undermanned, overworked military culture, where PT is the first thing cut to get jobs done. Canada also has gone away from the "For Queen and Country" mentality that led us to only require conscription for the end of the First World War. Now, most joining the CAF see it as a day job, working 9-5 in the public service, partially as a result of some terrible recruiting campaigns in the 80s. If we ever regain a warrior culture, you'd see our standards come closer to meeting ANZAC or UK fitness standards.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Apr 2016)

Loachman,

Sorry - I worded that poorly.

I was trying to imply that in terms of physical fitness standards & the "aggressive nature" of the training the OP was asking about (yelling, fitness, etc) - that the training undertaken after BMQ by someone in the combat arms would be more along the line of what he was asking about.  

Certainly wasn't trying to imply that the quality of training was less for one trade than another.


----------



## Steve726 (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You have our old standard. Our new one is much weaker. However, it apparently is legally defensible so we can boot people who can't do it.
> 
> We have an issue with undermanned, overworked military culture, where PT is the first thing cut to get jobs done. Canada also has gone away from the "For Queen and Country" mentality that led us to only require conscription for the end of the First World War. Now, most joining the CAF see it as a day job, working 9-5 in the public service, partially as a result of some terrible recruiting campaigns in the 80s. If we ever regain a warrior culture, you'd see our standards come closer to meeting ANZAC or UK fitness standards.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You have our old standard. Our new one is much weaker. However, it apparently is legally defensible so we can boot people who can't do it.
> 
> We have an issue with undermanned, overworked military culture, where PT is the first thing cut to get jobs done. Canada also has gone away from the "For Queen and Country" mentality that led us to only require conscription for the end of the First World War. Now, most joining the CAF see it as a day job, working 9-5 in the public service, partially as a result of some terrible recruiting campaigns in the 80s. If we ever regain a warrior culture, you'd see our standards come closer to meeting ANZAC or UK fitness standards.



That's not necessarily a bad thing, you've been independent a lot longer than we have. We have a weird relationship with England, its drilled into us "her majesty her majesty her majesty" and we still have photos of her hanging up everywhere. And when it comes to NZ different story entirely, basically defence wise we treat each other as the same country. We have an unusually close bond, and its actually written in our constitutions, that NZ can at any stage become apart of Australia even if we didn't want it. 

besides you are warriors i'm 90% certain you were just as involved in Afghanistan as we were.

any way cheers lads, got my answer, sorry about your situation though, but that's just the times Social Justice and political correctness is beginning to take hold everywhere we actually had a branch of customs disbanded because idealistic university students protested against its existence...       



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> You may find this discussion of interest,
> 
> How do we physically compare to other countries militaries?
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/47615.25.html
> ...



Well for some reason you already have an active digger on this site so you probably know what we're like.


----------



## dimsum (12 Apr 2016)

Steve726,

There's also a difference in that what you saw is the (old) standard for all services in the Canadian military.  I've worked with the RAAF, ARA and RAN and I know that the physical standards are different for each service, as I had to maintain the RAAF PFT standard when I was posted with them.  That wasn't particularly tough to do.

As an aside, we also have pictures of HM The Queen everywhere (well, on par with what I saw in Australia) as we're a Commonwealth country and she is still our head of state.


----------



## Loachman (12 Apr 2016)

Is your fitness standard universal, or just Army? Do each of your services have unique (to them) standards?

We have one service only - the Canadian Armed Forces. What, today, are known as "RCN", "CA", and RCAF" are merely environmental commands, formerly known as "Maritime Command", "Land Force Command", and "Air Command". The basic fitness standard must encompass all. It is based upon common physical task requirements that all must be able to carry out.

The standard also does not distinguish between men and women, or between seventeen-year-old recruits and those in their final year of service - Compulsory Release Age is sixty.

The younger members may moan how easy it is now, but many will be moaning out of the other sides of their mouths in forty years. It becomes a little more challenging then, but is still passable if reasonably fit.

Those in roles that require a higher level of fitness have to meet those levels.

Welcome to Army.ca. Poke around the Site a little. Enjoy and/or commiserate with some of the madness that gets inflicted upon us, and share your tales of the same (we already know some of them, but I am sure that there are more such delights).

Or come and visit and do the same. We have good beer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2016)

Steve726 said:
			
		

> Gday, Canadians.
> 
> I'm not a Canadian Soldier but i am a Soldier in a Commonwealth country. Any way, i was just looking up the fitness standards and basic training for different countries, and i found Canada's. I dont mean to be a dick but... its nothing... Don't get me wrong i'm not starting a crap fight it doesn't matter what country you're with we all put our hands up and volunteered for this crap and we all watch each others backs.
> 
> ...



Steve,

If you look at the CAF's performance in Afghanistan and elsewhere I think you'll find the troops do very well physically in comparison to those of other countries. The workup training is matched to the physical requirements of the job, a process that seems to be working, and as far as I'm concerned that's the part that really counts.

Having served with the British Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines I can tell you that their fitness tests and general PT standards were far higher, but there's a price to be paid for that in injuries that pop up when you continually do 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 milers etc. carrying heavy loads. 

While good for the regimental ego, I'm also not sure that a 50% + failure rate in training, largely due to an inability to meet the fitness standards, is a sign of a successful training system for those units that are not categorized as Special Forces.


----------

