26 and OLD!!

[bossi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?