How do we compare physically?
- Thread starter orange.paint
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,940
- Points
- 1,190
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.
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.
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.
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.
PuckChaser said:
PuckChaser said:
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:
Well for some reason you already have an active digger on this site so you probably know what we're like.
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.
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.
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.
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
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,780
- Points
- 1,160
Steve726 said:
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.
Similar threads
