# 26 and OLD!!



## CallOfDuty (8 Apr 2004)

Hey there everyone....Im 26 years old and just getting the ball rolling on joining the army.  After spending some time on these forums, Im starting to get the feeling that Im really old!! 
   Are there any others here that are over 25 and just embarking on a forces career?  
Cheers all
steve


----------



## jasonin20020 (8 Apr 2004)

i know a few pte‘s in my unit who are 31 and 38 repectfully.


----------



## Freight_Train (8 Apr 2004)

You‘re just a young pup yet, I‘m joining the infantry reserves, or as Infanteer puts it, the Volkstrum at 38.
Best of luck,
Greg


----------



## dano (8 Apr 2004)

I met some PTE that had finished BMQ not a year ago. They‘re we‘re both in late 30‘s and mid 40s.


----------



## winchable (8 Apr 2004)

Yeah 26 is nothiiing,
I know a 48 year old Infantry pte.


----------



## casing (8 Apr 2004)

I‘ll be 34 in a coupla months.  Just waiting on my medical to come back and the selection boards before I embark on a long career in the Regs.


----------



## Genesis (8 Apr 2004)

I‘m 26, have been in an armoured reserve unit for a year, and am doing BMQ this summer. I have not had a problem at all with the youngsters other than some of the conversations I don‘t feel like contributing too. The "I got so drunk last weekend and fell in a fire" type stuff usually doesn‘t catch my interest.


----------



## Greywolf (8 Apr 2004)

I‘ll be 28 next month and I‘m going to start BMQ at St. Jean in a week or so...


----------



## cathtaylor (8 Apr 2004)

I‘m 46 and I‘m still waiting for my medical to get back from Borden! Only thing left to do is the physical!


----------



## Farmboy (8 Apr 2004)

Just finishing BMQ, I‘m 30.


----------



## GrahamD (8 Apr 2004)

I‘m 28 years old and waiting for an offer for regular infantry.


----------



## Cooper (8 Apr 2004)

Theres a 42 year old recruit on a BMQ course my regt. is currently running.


----------



## girlfiredup (8 Apr 2004)

Looks like I have some company.        37 here and being tested at the end of April (CFAT).


----------



## Doug VT (9 Apr 2004)

I wish I was 26...


----------



## Phillman (9 Apr 2004)

A guy my SQ this past summer was 52. So, considering you are half his age, don‘t worry about it.


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by CallOfDuty:
> [qb] Hey there everyone....Im 26 years old and just getting the ball rolling on joining the army.  After spending some time on these forums, Im starting to get the feeling that Im really old!!
> Are there any others here that are over 25 and just embarking on a forces career?
> Cheers all
> steve [/qb]


I was 23 when I joined.

I was 42 when I first competed for a position for overseas and this was against 19/20yr olds,I made it and did it again the next year because the Tour the year before was canceled.
Just remember the older you get you must stay in shape as it gets harder to get back in shape.

Age is a frame of mind.


----------



## Brent Cross (9 Apr 2004)

I was 35 when I re-enlisted and am now 36 and just finishing up my BMQ.  I know there is at least one other recruit on my course that is older and there are a couple approaching 30.


----------



## bossi (9 Apr 2004)

I once enroled an officer who was in his forties - he topped his BOTC.

"Old age and treachery will always defeat naive, youthful exuberence."
(a quote referring to ‘Old-Timers‘ hockey)


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by bossi:
> [qb] I once enroled an officer who was in his forties - he topped his BOTC.
> 
> "Old age and treachery will always defeat naive, youthful exuberence."
> (a quote referring to ‘Old-Timers‘ hockey) [/qb]


Like I said "Age is a Frame of Mind"

I‘m 50 but do not look it.Why? I hang with the youngens and have fun and don‘t think of age but I do realise I do not have the body that I once had but I still can give them a run for their money.    

It‘s all in your mind.
If you want it,prepare for it physically and mentally.   

From a OLD FART.


----------



## LaRo (9 Apr 2004)

I am 23 year old. Is that too young to post on this thread?


----------



## CallOfDuty (9 Apr 2004)

allriiiight!!!!!!!!  This is good to hear   
  Im glad to see that there are older people doing exactly what i am doing too.
cheers all
Steve


----------



## Jason Bourne (9 Apr 2004)

I ran into a gruff old Sgt. who just got out, he was at the bar enjoying himself, around 50ish, but very much in shape, proudly wearing his dogtags. We had a little chat (he bought me a few beers.what a guy!) and I told him I was leaving for St. Jean and all that. He said he would get in and do it again in a heartbeat if he didn‘t have family and all that. Thats a trooper!


----------



## chk2fung (10 Apr 2004)

Don‘t forget about us young‘uns. I was a 17 year old officer cadet.  It can be jsut as hard for young guys as it is old guys, especially trying to earn respect.  It is intimdating to be young!!!  The young ones learn lots from the older guys and believe it or not the young guys have a few things they can teach senior too.  Respect is given to those who earn it no matter the age. I have seen 50 year old hold up on PT with 25 year olds.  As long as you‘re enthusiatic, ready for change, eager to learn from msitakes, and willing to give it your all for the whole, you will go far in the Forces.


----------



## Gayson (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Farmboy:
> [qb] Just finishing BMQ, I‘m 30. [/qb]


Just 2 more weekends farmboy =D


----------



## ZipperHead (20 May 2004)

I know I‘m going to catch **** for this, but here goes: the military is a young man‘s game. 

I‘m 35 and in better shape than a lot of the guys in their teens and early 20‘s (or older) that work for me. I have to WORK hard to get and stay in shape now. When I was a young ‘un I could drink all night and then go for a LSD run. Now if I have a bit of a bender, I‘m recovering for 2 days, and forget about running (creaky bones).

I have heard/seen many people use their age as an excuse to be out of shape. When I joined there was "over 35" PT for all the crusty types, and I aspired to be able to do that. Alas, that has gone the way of the 5/4 ton...... I have to set goals for myself to force myself to stay in shape. I‘m running in the Cabot Trail Relay next weekend (17.5 km leg into Ingonish). I am planning on doing a half-marathon as soon as I can, and a marathon before I hit 40.

All that said, age is a frame of mind, and the people who "act" old (25 year olds with a big gut and can‘t climb a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing, and have the big-*** XBox thumb muscles, etc) are a poor excuse for soldiers. I agree that most people should be able to join (or apply at the least), but they better be able to perform. I have a 30 year old Trooper (private) in my troop who has more on the ball than some of the 18 year olds who have joined lately, and he has 10 times the work ethic and drive. This is of course due to maturity, and realizing that getting drunk and/or laid by Mary Jane Rottencrotch isn‘t the end-all for a Saturday night (man, I must be getting old if I feel that way too.....). Some of the older people joining have actually experienced life, and some of the chickensh!t stuff we do in the military isn‘t for them, and they think they are above doing it. But if you‘re a 35 year old Private and a 22 year old MCpl tells you to shovel sh!t, you better be hopping to it, and not moaning about it.

I suspect that if average 40 year old civilians can join, and pass all the training, that might be saying something about the state of our training (*****cough***too easy****cough*****). Not so much the training, I suppose, but the standards (or lack thereof). The military isn‘t a social employment agency, where it‘s "come one, come all and don‘t worry about meeting the standard: we‘ll lower ours to meet yours!!!!". The military is about the defence of our nation, and the nation‘s interests (whatever THEY want that to mean....). Soldiering should be difficult (and physically difficult). Walter Mitty types need not apply. 

One of the things that distresses me of late with our military is the policy of offering extensions (CE - 3 or 5 year, IPS- indefinite period of service - up to the age of 55) to Cpl‘s and higher, whereas it used to go to only to WO‘s (in the Armour trade, anyway) and higher. I know some older guys that can soldier better than the young guys, but the thought of a 54 year old Corporal trying to keep up on a section attack makes me shudder. I know it can be done, but not by the people that I have seen getting the extensions. Yes, they have experience that 20 year olds don‘t have, but what good is that experience if it can‘t be employed where it‘s important: in the field, or more pointedly, overseas during operations. The British Army has (had??) a policy whereby you can only serve 22 years, unless you are a RSM. I don‘t know all the in‘s and out‘s of this policy, but a Brit Sgt I worked with in Bosnia in 2001 told me of it. I agree with it in principal though: war is a young man‘s game. I suppose the Brits should know this better than us, what with fighting wars for the last 1000 years or so.

I know that I went off on a tangent (what else is new). I hope the best for the older people that are joining, and I hope your eyes are open to the grim realities of the business (when you‘re 18 and you join, you don‘t know any better, so what is bullsh!t to a 35 year old might actually seem cool at that age). Be all that you can be.... If you have no life, there‘s nothing like it!!!!

Off for a nap now,

Al


----------



## Farmboy (20 May 2004)

> so what is bullsh!t to a 35 year old might actually seem cool at that age).


That seems to be the opposite to what I find. I know it‘s BS, but I know it must be done.

 These "gamers" that join know it‘s BS as well and think they are above it, or it doesn‘t matter, the attitude is "What ever"


----------



## Bert (20 May 2004)

You wrote an interesting post Allan, but you make a broad age generalization based upon a perception of physical fitness and age.

No one can argue that physical fitness is important for all military members and 
especially for the combat arms.

Yet, after reading your post, lets step back a bit.  You say you‘re military so I assume you‘ve been thru basic training, maybe a few courses, been with the unit, and seen stuff and been around.

Considering all that you have met and seen in the military, what is the most important quality you‘ve noticed? Is it the ability to do 40 push-ups as opposed to 19?  Is it running 5 km in 12 minutes as opposed to 20?  The fitness threshold requirements of the genders or age groups?  

Consider this.  Taking your experience from you
military background, lets set up a scenario.  Its a dark cold wet afternoon and you haven‘t eaten in
8 hours and you‘re drenched.  The whole platoon is drenched, tired, hungry, and fed-up being yelled after spending most of the day in the field and on the range and looking forward to a rest and a meal.  The Range NCO then orders the platoon to pick-up 1,004,349 empty casings laying around in the mud and then later gives the platoon 150 push-ups for not picking up all the casings.

During that scenario (I expect most of us have faced something like that), who do you most think puts out the most effort, the drive, and the perseverence to get the job done, takes the crap, sucks it up, and returns to the barracks with a decent attitude?  If you have the experience, its not always the most physically fit, the youngest, the oldest, and you‘d be surprised at the people who do well in unusul situations.  The drive, purpose, and the perseverence to do the job whether its in the combat arms or a support trade are important things to consider.


----------



## tirekicker (21 May 2004)

i am 38 and am also getting the ball rolling just waiting for the call to do my med.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 May 2004)

(Bert, if you click on my name (above the cool as **** Strathcona cap badge) you can peruse my profile.)

I have in fact been in a similar scenario that you mention (and on more than a few exercises, in the unit, been around, etc). However, picking up casings in the rain after a whopping 8 hours could be done by my 74 year old mother who has glaucoma and a bad back, and survived WWII and the constant threat of being bombed by the Russians while living in Finland, dontchaknow.... What matters more than anything is the ability to be able to perform in combat, battle, even adverse conditions. I would submit that experience can help you make decisions that can make your life easier, but being fit and ready to fight is what wins battles. 

Take a look at the Special Forces units of any country. What do they have in common? They are all fit. The average age in JTF2 hovered in the mid 30‘s a bunch of years ago (it has probably dropped down as a lot of guys got out and they are upping the manning), and those guys were fit in spite of being over 26 (the age that started this thread). 

As well, the older someone is when they join, they generally bring a certain amount of baggage when they join. Not always, but I‘ve seen more than a few late-20‘s, early 30‘s types joining with 2,3 or even more kids, sometimes as many ex-wives, and other admin problems out the ***. A 19 year old is pretty much good to go whenever and wherever you want to send them (as long as they can bring their XBox and Discman.....). 

I know I was speaking in broad terms, but I have lived through 16 years of watching people not being able to perform (be it 19 year olds who shouldn‘t have passed basic, but there was a new social policy in place, to the 31 year old (with less than a year in), who should be shot with a ball of his own sh!t who said "I should be a MCpl because I‘m older than some of the MCpl‘s in the Regiment". 

Anyway, the moral of my story is this: join at whatever age you choose (for some people it has been a life long dream denied by formerly restrictive policies), but be aware that the fitter (and not neccesarily younger) you are, the easier almost everything will be (try being out of shape and doing section attacks by day, patrolling by night and manning a defence with minimal sleep, and get back to me after they recourse you). 

A lot of what I mentioned was a reaction to my growing frustration with the mentality of too many people in our military that you don‘t need to be fit, 60% effort in everything is good enough, and you can coast through your career to 55 is a birthright, while the guys who are good to go, get and stay fit on their own time,  actually give a rat‘s arse about being a soldier, and then get "punished" for their dedication by going on tour after tour, duty after duty, instructing while other‘s can‘t because of "injuries" that go away after work hours and on weekends. 

That was my rant for the evening (until the next one....)

Al


----------



## rcr (21 May 2004)

So, how fit do you think we should be when we go into Basic Training?


----------



## Bert (21 May 2004)

Archer

You‘ll get alot of opinions on fitness here.  Go to the
CF recruiting site and read about the fitness
specs and guidelines.  Search this site for info 
on basic training and fitness threads.  Based on your interests in the CF, assess yourself and your goals and keep asking questions.  Talk to a 
fitness instructor or a personal trainer, the CFRC, and people with experience.

Heres a good site for a general overview of basic training:

 http://salh.jfahy.net/


----------



## rcr (21 May 2004)

I‘m looking for Allan Luomala‘s opinion.  Thanks though, Bert.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 May 2004)

Whatever the minimum standard is, and then some. The "a C‘s a P(***) and the weekend‘s free for me" attitude is the death of the Army. The minimum standard shouldn‘t be what people strive for. It‘s a guideline to keep those without a pulse out of the military, and that‘s it. I read a quote on an American leadership site that goes (something) like this: "The 60% soldier of today is the 60% Top Sergeant of tomorrow". The Cdn equivalent would replace Top Sergeant with Sergeant Major, but it remains the same principle. 

Too many people (in the combat arms even) think that completing the Battle Fitness Test (13km ruck march with webbing, rucksack and helmet and weapon) in the maximum allowable time means that you are ready to go to war. WRONG!!!! Look at the guys who couldn‘t go up the mountain during Op Cherokee Sky in Afghanistan in 2002. Infantrymen who dropped their rucks and couldn‘t/wouldn‘t go on without a boot in their *** to get them moving. A full combat load certainly weighs more than the joke they call a load on the BFT comprises. 

Anyway, take whatever they tell you is the minimal standard (sorry, but I don‘t know what is nowadays), but try to better that by as much as you humanly can. I trained soldiers on the SQ in Wainwright last year that passed BMQ, and all that I can say is that they weren‘t fit to fight. I was worried about going into instruct these young pups, and being in far from stellar shape, and I was able to outrun a goodly number of them. Drive and dedication is also important (even "fit" guys will easily quit when a minor obstacle confronts them). Giving up because it "hurts" is not good. "Hurt" is a relative term. Too me, when you start blacking out, seeing sparklies, legs collapse, vomit erupts: that‘s hurt. Not out of breath and your thighs are un-comfy.

Anyway, that‘s how fit you should be....

Al


----------



## rcr (21 May 2004)

Allan Luomala, thanks.  I was a good-ways over the minimum when I did my PT test acouple weeks ago, but I don‘t think i‘m fit enough yet.  We‘ll see when my time comes. Cheers. (Apologies for going off topic)


----------



## Bert (21 May 2004)

Allan

I understand your point about fitness.  As mentioned before, its no arguement fitness is important especially for the combat arms and
any age.

Its just you focus squarely on age and fitness and your assumption that they directly relates to 
military competency is odd.  Younger people definitely have more physical resisliency (sp)and potential at physical accomplishments.  Yet, you miss other important factors like job experience,
attitude, life experience, the ability to understand teamwork, qualifications, purpose, focus, perseverence, and problem solving.  

Any number of these factors that are missing or non-existent limits the member in alot of ways.  The member could be 19, a physical dynamo, able to run faster than a CF-18, but if he can‘t 
work in a team or has a bad attitude, hes essentially useless.  If your profile is correct, you outta know this.  Superior physical fitness
does not directly equate to a member‘s overall performance.  These factors are present in any member of any age.  If a radar goes down and it has to be fixed quickly, will superior physical fitness save the day?  Will job experience and technical knowledge have any effect?  In a fire-fight, will superior physical fitness soley allow the member to fight, over-come, and adapt to conditions?  Or is there more to people that makes them over-come adversity and keep going.

Just consider theres more to the equation.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 May 2004)

Bert,

I suspect that you have an issue with what I‘m saying. Fair enough. Fitness nor age don‘t make the soldier. You can‘t buy experience. Teamwork is important. But why then don‘t we have a military of 60 year old retirees, with life experience out the whazoo. They would know teamwork, because they‘ve needed it to make it through life for 60 years. 

My field is the field. If you aren‘t fit, you can‘t do the job. You could be the best tank gunner or driver, Coyote Surveillance Operator in
the classroom or in garrison, but can‘t perform because you‘re tired after doing a little work during the day and then having to work through the night, you are useless. Being physically fit is important, as it makes doing most tasks easier (including mental tasks). Being young helps make getting up at 0300 for whatever mindless task that much easier, and being able to function in that mindless task. 

Are you really surprised that the armies of the past recruited the young to do the fighting? Sure some countries used the old timers for homeland defence, but the pointy end always had the young bucks out there. No amount of life experience will get you up and out of the trench into No Mans Land if you are frail and weak. 

I know a lot more now than I did when I was younger, and realize that I was a fool to think a lot of the things that I did then. But my younger self was able to do the 10 mile ruckmarck in 1hr 45mins and barely sweat. I did the 13km ruckmarch a few months back in 1hr 50min (beat everybody in my unit doing it that day, mind you) but I was feeling it, all right, and wished that I took it easy rather than to try to prove that I can out-ruck the young pups (maybe I was smarter when I was younger). 

In our more technical military, we need technically minded soldiers (AKA Nintendo Generation), not the dinosaurs who think that computers are just a fad that will go away. We need young, fit, smart soldiers to join, and be molded by fit, smart NCO‘s and officers that can lead from the front, who can let go of the past and the comfort levels that we had from the post-Cold War "nothings gonna happen, so we can get fat and complacent". 9/11 ring a bell? Iraq? Afghanistan? 

My wife was in Afghanistan in 2002, and she knows what it‘s like to struggle up a mountain under a full load, and not be in the best shape. She wishes that she was better prepared. She‘s a good medic, and that made her press on; so that the troops would have somebody there to help them if they needed her. So drive and dedication play a huge role. But it doesn‘t matter how much you know about something, if you can‘t be there to do it. Trucks break down. Tanks get blown up. Strap on the ruck, and carry on. Mission before self.

Anyway, you know what you mean, and I know what I mean. There‘s a comms gap (give me the right crypto fill, Jimmy) methinks, but again, some of this is borne of the frustration that I‘m struggling with, trying to convince myself that I can help change people‘s attitudes back to the way it should be in the military (fit to fight) not the way it became (fat and lazy).

T42B - Out

Al


----------



## Bert (22 May 2004)

Actually, you sound like Andy Rooney on a beer night.


----------



## Old Cent Hand (22 May 2004)

The BFT, and the Express Test , are the minimal standards for fitness in the Army , anyone can pass these tests. As for " humping" one‘s *** in Afghanistan , they made it back , and are enjoying the good " Coin". That‘s what it‘s all about these days is the money. Big cash on tour , then 6 months later , these people are more " broke" , than before. Heck, I would go to Afganistan , on TD.Yes for another $340, a month , I would go there , in a heart beat. To go overseas for the money ? I could prostitute myself , here in Edmonton , and make more " coin".


----------



## Old Cent Hand (22 May 2004)

That‘s what a tour overseas these days is about , more money.I wish I could be " over fed, over paid , over there."


----------



## Jungle (22 May 2004)

I absolutely agree with Allan. You can‘t lead "young bucks" from the front if you are out of shape. Nobody is asking anyone to become olympic athletes, but to be fit enough to get the job done, and be ready for the next one without taking a week off...
The stds in the BFT and EXPRES tests are the bare minimum; if people struggle to meet them, then they are not fit enough. They are stds everyone should be able to meet easily at any time, without having to prepare for weeks.


----------



## bossi (22 May 2004)

Physical fitness is certainly essential, and it‘s particularly frustrating for an "old-timer" to see youngsters who can‘t keep up (and so, age actually isn‘t the dominant/over-riding criteria ...)

I‘m sorry I haven‘t got the article at my fingertips, but I clearly remember reading about US Army casualties at the beginning of the Korean War - the young ‘career‘ officers were decimated, but the older reservists who arrived with the second wave were significantly fitter (the article suggested this was because the second wave was comprised more of WWII veterans, who knew the real value of physical fitness was more than just a nice PER score ... plus they had the advantage of experience on their side).

Darwinian selection is a lovely thing - the herd is culled as weaker members of the pack are weeded out, no matter whether they‘re young or old (i.e. it‘s not just a coincidence that the words "old" and "wily" are often associated with each other, whereas "young" and "foolish" so often go hand in hand ...)

Anyway, I‘m headed out the door to go for a bike ride (instead of being chained to the keyboard).
Hope all of you get outdoors and enjoy yourselves this long weekend - we deserve a break from the drudgery!


----------



## Bert (22 May 2004)

Is that your experience Jungle or are you generalizing for the sake of it?  Allan‘s posts and opinions evolved from tying age to fitness to attititude in broad sweeping statements.  

The military is simplistically about mass manpower and equipment and focusing it on a task
as defined by the government. That involves teamwork, drive and purpose to get the job done. 
It does requires effort from every individual. 

In every unit one can climb up on a tall horse 
and point around at people deemed not "fit" enough.  In another post, a person claimed be could do 52 push-ups and felt the fitness bar should be raised.  Perhaps, but the issue is more of arrogance than critically looking at the requirement.

I work on an active base and I see all kinds of
people, characteristics, and events.  You see
the processes that work and the processes that don‘t.  If the job can‘t be done in time, can‘t be completed or the result can‘t be meant within
expectations, theres reasons for it.

Allan takes the view fitness relates to age
that means deteriorated results (all military).  Its simply wrong in my opinion though I‘m not in the combat arms in Afganistan either. 

My opposition to it is in the generalization.  The most fit soldier (combat arms or not) does not
mean superior results.  Take a course like BMQ, you have inexperienced people of all fitness categories.  Some very fit people finish the course, some very fit people do not.  Some people
who are not as fit do as well or more so in
various categories than the most fit.  The thing is being the most "fit" isn‘t the point of BMQ.  Every unit has these characteristics.

The processes that fail to work are more or less due to attitude and the failure of teamwork or the tools to manage the team.  Whether you‘re a combat soldier or a technican on a ERT preparing to go to a remote job on short notice, the biggest
impediment to completing the mission is the guys that stand around with their hands in their pockets, arrogantly comparing themselves to others, or failing to support the team so it can continue with best effort.  This transcends age
and relative fitness.  Theres NO measurable  difference in the field between a soldier who can
do 30 push-ups or 60 or who can run a distance +/-a few minutes.  The true success lies in attitude
and teamwork.  

If there is those who can‘t perform to specifications, then its the unit‘s management
who has to sort it out.

The arguement Allan makes about physical fitness and age to me is just a rant.  The real source of fustration that some members may feel lies somewhere else.

PS> AND FURTHERMORE the line wrapping text formating functionality of these little text
editing boxes are ticking me off!


----------



## Jungle (22 May 2004)

From a Leadership point of view, you have to link age and fitness. Have you ever seen a 23-year old WO in an Infantry Battalion ??? Generally, promotion to WO occurs between 35 and 40... but we still have to keep up, and LEAD. I was myself promoted to WO at 35, and I still had to keep up with the PL, and be ready to replace the "young buck" LT I had as a PL Commander, something that happened on a few occasions. You think the Coy commander would accept that the PL slow down because the old WO is in charge ???
Then there are the guys who don‘t make WO, who stay Sgt and end up commanding a Rifle Section in their late 30‘s.
Now of course fitness is not everything. But what good is all the experience, knowledge, maturity if it is stuck in the valley while the battle is at the summit ???


----------



## Bert (22 May 2004)

Good point.  Likewise, if its not a cake walk for the geriatrics, likely it wouldn‘t be a nice stroll in the park for the pups either.  The guys on the summit have to be on the ball and its not just physical.  Would you want a 19 year old WO?
I know a few that would a good job though.  Remember the military isn‘t all combat arms either.  Anyways, I think after all this we understand balance of things.


----------



## ZipperHead (23 May 2004)

I see I am getting through to the people who see my point, as general and broad as it is, and not getting through to people who refuse to see the forest for the trees. 

Bert, I assume you are not a paragon of fitness, nor a spring chicken. You seem defensive about the age and fitness issue, that‘s why I assume this (I know, I know.... assume makes an *** of you and me). You too are broad and general in your inference that a young, fit soldier is arrogant, lacks teamwork, has a superior attitude, lacks drive. Sure it‘s possible, just the same as an old, fat, lazy soldier can be arrogant, lack teamwork, have poor drive, and have a pissy attitude. Somewhere in between is the reality.

As Jungle says, if the fight is at the summit, no point in being in the valley. I personally would rather have a slightly out of shape soldier who never quits when the going gets tough than some gazelle who quits when things go for sh!t. That‘s the crux of my argument, though I can see I presented it poorly. 

All too often, we rest on our laurels, and talk about how great we USED to be. Those days are gone, and the reality is it is hard to stay in fighting trim. Society seems to have gone down the route that if it‘s too hard, there‘s no point in doing it (that‘s a Homer Simpson type of philosophy, methinks and just look at him!!!). We want instant gratification, and if 20 pushups doesn‘t make me look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I‘ll just be fat and happy. 

On my tour to Bosnia in 2000-2001, we had 2 deaths. Any guess what the cause was of both? Wasn‘t snipers, wasn‘t mine strikes, wasn‘t "heroic" deaths..... One was a 42 year old Cpl who died on the sh!tter. He wasn‘t a candidate for JTF selection, is the way I‘ll put it. The other fella was a clerk who packed it in doing a ruckmarch. His BMI was pushing his age, if I recall correctly, and he wasn‘t a young guy. Typical of the climate in the military at the time, people said we should stop doing ruckmarches because they were dangerous to your health. Nobody leapt to the logical conclusion that people should, you know, eat less and exercise more. Nah, just eat and eat (shitty food at that), and just sit on your ***, and life is good.

Bert, I just re-read your last post, and you say "Remember the military isn‘t all combat arms either". That‘s such a lame cop-out I don‘t even know how to respond. CSS stands for what?? Jessica Lynch was a hard-assed what again? Infantry soldier? Tanker?? Every soldier in the CF should be an infantry soldier, first and foremost, and then whatever else trade they are (like the Marine Corps). I suppose that would make us an effective fighting force, but we wouldn‘t want that, would we? That would require hard work, dedication, teamwork, and a good, positive attitude. Only non-fit people seem to have that.

Anyway, I know this, like many of my other rants, will convince no one who isn‘t like-minded, and make those that oppose my point of view sure that they are right and I am dead wrong. 

Al


----------



## elscotto937 (24 May 2004)

One point I would like to make is that I believe that age (and Family situation) would make a difference more so for the pers enrolling in the regular force. Because the truth is no matter what you physical condition is; your recovery time is elongated with age. In the regular army you don‘t always have the time to wait for someone to recover. However, you can be as gung-ho as you want on an evening a week, and the occasional weekend. I‘m not trying to belittle the reserves, but that is the simple truth.
That being said, 26 is definately not in the "too old" realm for either the regular or reserve forces.


----------



## Rick_Donald (25 May 2004)

I‘m 39 and reenlisting in the reserves. I know the standards I had to pass to through basic, battle school and the jump course 20 years ago and know I can do it over again. And from what I‘ve heard from some of you guys here and at other military forums is that those standards aren‘t quite as demanding as they used to be now.
But I guess I‘ll find out for sure, eh?
Who knows, maybe I‘ll even go reg again and shake off this dull boring civvie job before I get "too old."


----------



## Bert (25 May 2004)

Allan>
"Bert, I assume you are not a paragon of fitness, nor a spring chicken. You seem defensive about the age and fitness issue, that‘s why I assume this (I know, I know.... assume makes an *** of you and me). You too are broad and general in your inference that a young, fit soldier is arrogant, lacks teamwork, has a superior attitude, lacks drive. Sure it‘s possible, just the same as an old, fat, lazy soldier can be arrogant, lack teamwork, have poor drive, and have a pissy attitude. Somewhere in between is the reality.

As Jungle says, if the fight is at the summit, no point in being in the valley. I personally would rather have a slightly out of shape soldier who never quits when the going gets tough than some gazelle who quits when things go for sh!t. That‘s the crux of my argument, though I can see I presented it poorly."

Actually Allan, you right about assumptions and you write in wide generalistic circles.   For all you wrote, it was presented poorly. If you read my posts, I never meant the young soldier lacks good qualities.  Its just you miss the balance of things. You‘re not getting the drift of my posts.

As a Sgt (as your profile suggests), you should understand the balance of things.  Essentially you‘re a manager and a job has to get done.  It takes teamwork to get a job done using the skill sets and competencies you and team have.  If you had only the young, how far would you team get?  If you had only the old how far would your team get?  Theres a balance of skills, education, guts,
drive, and effort to get the job done which combines everyone.  That is the point.

As far as the combat arms and the support trades, there is a difference.  My reference includes navy, air force, and army.  Not every MOC, trade or unit trains for the same type of deployability
or level of physical fitness.  Obviously the seaman wouldn‘t be charged with the role of infantryman.  Yet, the navy and air force receive tactical training, deployment training, and annual certifications.  They just don‘t have the same day to day job or MOC training.  You understand Allan?

Exercises combine various technologies, unit 
capabilities, and inter-operability and it may not
involve a 60 km march up a hill from the infantrymen‘s or armoured perspective.  It may involve deployments to set up radar, communications, med vac, co-ordination of aircraft, and sea support.  It may
not involve the same tactical physical level of
the infantryman but still involves knowledge, drive, teamwork, and get-go to finish the job quickly and within specs.  The point of age is lost here.  Fitness is important obviously.  If an individual can‘t measure up, management picks upon it and its sorted out either with further training or further action.  Young and old are
measured to criteria.  As a manager, you should know this too.  If theres older people in your unit and you find their fitness to be so low as
not to be deployed, talk to your chain of command.  Sort out the problem.  Thats what Sgts and managers are for.  

Sgts eat little children, kick open doors,
slop their coffee, bark out orders, pull tails off dogs that kinda thing.  Big wide circumpec
descriptions are strange.


----------



## Fraser.g (27 May 2004)

I know the feeling Allan,

This year I got my first troop into my Platoon who was born AFTER I joined.

I talk about my time in Yugo and realize that they were 4 or five when I went.


----------



## ZipperHead (27 May 2004)

I knew I was starting to get old when I taught on a SQ course, and the soldier‘s were talking about one guy‘s mom being a "Cougar", and she was 2 years younger than me (33 to my 35). I told my wife that she officially fell into Coug territory (at 34)and she wasn‘t too happy about that (she didn‘t like being called Mrs Luomala by our neighbours teenage son, either, but I think she‘s in heavy denial.....)

Al


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Allan Luomala:
> [qb] I knew I was starting to get old when I taught on a SQ course, and the soldier‘s were talking about one guy‘s mom being a "Cougar",
> Al [/qb]


Phone number, please?


----------

