Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
In addition to the above post, so-called "minimum PT standards" much like certain medical qualifications/disqualifications are based on a completely bull#### "SHTF" scenario that presupposes that some kind of superhuman effort by all members of a unit may be necessary.

I remember the old "feminine hygiene products will overcome the capabilities of our logistics system" argument. Nevermind the fact that soda, chew, big screen TVs and porn are quite well supplied to male soldiers downrange without so much as a squeek.

In certain ways, the "he-man woman haters" in the military are reminiscent of the Taliban in their arguments. Of course, there is a solution: It's called instilling discipline in troops, which solution has gone out of style in the US military from my point of view.
I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from on the matter of PT Standards. Are you saying there should be no minimum standards? I am not saying that the current PT Standards are the best to assess combat fitness (they are probably not) but I am saying that there is a standard necessary.

Why do we hear so much about the modern soldier being overloaded and unable to hump his battle kit? We discussed this issue in another thread and spoke about this fitness. See The Roles and Weapons with the Squad and start at about post #598

I would suggest that first off the load the infantryman is expected to carry should be reassessed. Surely it is this apparent load requirement that would remove 95% of females from contention for the infantry.



I assume that this sort of load is deemed necessary by commanders so how would this load be divided up if there were some females in the squad? The guys carry more?

Then if a female could get upright with such a load can she do 20kms in a day or a week or at all?

Going back to PT (I was trained as a PT Instructor in 1973) the idea of the t-shirt, short pants and running shoes initial PT was to exercise the whole body as the army would not know what the overall physical condition of each recruit was. There was the 10 week build-up programme which covered 2,3 or 5 kms runs and pull-ups, sit-ups, push ups and the like. By the end of basic training one was able to see a difference in the physique of the youngsters and if they past that type of PT test they were deemed fit to move onto training which required them to apply exertion under load. By the end of their training (I think called the MOS in the US) the ability would be tested by a march and shoot exercise where they would march under load (48lbs - 21.7kgs) for maybe 5kms within a certain time and be required to score a minimum on a range shoot at the end.

I would (FWIW) support a review of battle strength/fitness standards if it were done based only on the operational demands of modern combat but not... if the hidden aim is to lower the bar to allow women entry... because with the women will come a whole bunch of male weaklings and that would be the real disaster.