Blasphemy: Article advocates afternoon PT

[infntryldr]

The secret to PT 'getting done' is to hold people responsible for their fitness. The NCOs know who's fit and who isn't...

Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible.

Having to do anything via a formation is an individual or a leadership failure; usually both. Treat 'em like children and they'll act like children. Treat 'em like adults and most will act like adults -- the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed.

Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors. Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.

the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed.

They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them. Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.

An even better reason for morning PT is that it gets the metabolism flowing. A good reason for occasional after lunch or late afternoon PT is that it varies the routine and provides a change of pace, particularly if it's a ruck road march or a cross country run -- or, even better an obstacle or confidence course with weapons.

Couldnt agree with you more.

[Ken White]

Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible.

forty and fifty year olds who lack the self confidence to trust or use their subordinates...

Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors.

I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp. That's a learning and conditioning experience, service in a unit is operating experience -- or is supposed to be, anyway. Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.

Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.

we can disagree. My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.

They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them.

We can also disagree strongly on that. If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading. YMMV. On that line, I've yet to see a pushup or a long hard run clean a weapon, clean a head/latrine or instill a desire to excel in a Snuffy.

Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.

Why do I need good luck. Old age and treachery will trump youth and skill. I can recall people getting tossed out of the Corps -- that was during Korea, not peacetime -- and the Army -- VN, not peace.

Not hard, just takes a little effort and having your act together. It does get difficult if the chain of command screws up...

[IntelTrooper]

Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.we can disagree. We can also disagree strongly on that. If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading.

In Afghanistan, my team did PT separately. There was an expectation that everyone needed to be doing it 4 or 5 days a week, and the rest was up to the individual. Everyone, including our young, "not responsible" soldier, significantly improved their fitness because we were holding each other accountable and given the opportunity to challenge ourselves beyond what could be accomplished in a PT formation (my PT scores were always lowest in basic/AIT). Incidentally, that's basically how the whole FOB conducted PT, including a GPF company, and they all improved their fitness over the course of the year.

I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal. I don't see Olympic athletes or body builders standing in PT formations every morning. If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

[Ken White]

I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal.

I could even make the point that the way most units do it, it's counterproductive...

If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

Heh. I've long believed that unit cohesion lies in the rank of the beholder. PSGs have a different view than even their Sqd Ldrs, Co cdrs and 1SGs have a different outlook, the folks at Bn/Sqn even more different. All that is aimed at mot units, there are a few exceptions but they're rare.

The senior leadership believes they're fostering unit cohesion by rotating units instead of individuals -- and that is an order of magnitude improvement; it's just a shame the Personnel system hasn't kept up -- they still try to do their things by, with and to individuals...

Mike F: All the foregoing not to disagree with your contention, I'm sure it's correct. My point was that it is very difficult to do stressful things in garrison and shared real stress, not hassles or formations, builds cohesion.

Umm, yes, that does mean that I believe PT as it is generally today construed and conducted is more hassle than benefit.

[MikeF]

My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.

Ken,

One minor point of disagreement. I liked Friday Company PT b/c it was one of the few times during the week that I could get everyone together. A tough run coupled with some mud and an obstacle course did a good bit to build company morale. Plus, sometimes I even got to call cadence.

Mike

[infntryldr]

forty and fifty year olds who lack the self confidence to trust or use their subordinates...

I dont think it has anything to do with trusting your subordinates. I trusted my NCO's to run squad PT. I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere. Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men. Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.

I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp.

I just retired from the Marine Corps.

My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial.

My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well. And since you do not unfortunately spend your entire time in the field, you must find ways of building in it in the rear.

If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading.

Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct.

I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal. I don't see Olympic athletes or body builders standing in PT formations every morning. If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create. What we are trying to create is an individual who has a certain level of combat fitness. Which you can accomplish by organized PT sessions.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

[Entropy]

Interesting comments.

As an AF/NAVY fobbit kind of guy, the model I've seen work best is a kind of hybrid - on PT days (which were 3 days a week), the unit would muster in the morning at the Gym. Everyone would sign in for accountability purposes and then individuals would PT on their own. Once every two weeks, usually a Friday, we do some kind of group PT, usually a run or a mock PT test. Anyone who failed the yearly PT test got supervised PT every morning and then retested in a month. I thought that system worked pretty well and provided a decent balance.

[IntelTrooper]

I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.

There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.

If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create.

Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

[infntryldr]

There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.

Organizational reasons? Go away? No, there are just people who will slake when given the opportunity to slake not matter how much cajoling you do.

Actually Marine reservist do fail there PFT's on a greater scale then active duty. And when they do drill, they do have unit cohension building events, and sometimes PT, especially if its annual training. Of course expectations are made clear to the Marine that he needs to stay in shape. But just because there is an expectation does not make it reality.

Like I stated earlier, unit PT is not just about getting in shape, it has other benifits to it as well. And in a infantry unit, those benifits are direclty related to unit success.

Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

IMO I believe that a physical fitness regimen has to be tailored to the mission, not the individual. A scout swimmer has a different physical expecation then a artilleryman.

I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

PT has a dual purpose of getting peole in shape, and building unit cohesion.

[Kiwigrunt]

Reading these last few posts I wonder if we can compare it with doing homework for school. It is the student’s responsibility to do the homework required to pass the test/exam. I do of course realise that fitness for an active duty unit is at a different scale of importance, and effects the unit much more than a school situation where every one is an individual. But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to:

My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

Maybe Entropy has the right idea with a mixed balance, where the occasional organised PT could be structured towards instilling that sense of responsibility and understanding of purpose.
Hmmm, as usual, no silver bullets…

[infntryldr]

But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to

I completely agree that there should be an instilling of responsibility in the young lads, but I just think you do that by putting them in charge of running the PT

Also, when I am talking about PT, I am not limiting myself to just running shoes and shorts, and going on a nice little jog. I am talking more in line with combat fitness. Hikes, obstacle courses, combatives, grass drills and guerilla type exercises. The things you cant do on your own.

[Schmedlap]

NCOs are responsible for the physical fitness of their Soldiers. That is such a basic and widely understood fact of military life that it was asked at no fewer than half a dozen E-5 promotion boards when I was at the company level. Officers leading PT, imo, makes about as much sense as Officers teaching basic rifle marksmanship or how to do the "extend to the left" drill. Spot-checking, occasional testing, and other "boss's footsteps" measures are fine. But let the NCOs do their jobs. The old rule about treating people like children applies to NCOs as well as lower enlisted. Treat them like kids and many will get frustrated and start playing the role.

We trusted our team leaders to lead 72-hour, 3- to 4-man missions in an AO where enemy contact was a daily occurrence and to do so with little more than the weapons that are organic to an infantry fire team, an MBITR radio, and a basic load of class I and up to double-basic of class V. An NCO who cannot be trusted to ensure that their Soldiers are meeting their physical readiness potential in garrison cannot be trusted to lead them during far more important and dangerous missions when deployed. This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

The issue here seems to be not so much how to get Soldiers in shape - that's easy: put a good NCO in charge of them. The issue is how to get the good NCOs in charge of the Soldiers. That's an easy fix. Moving an NCO from one duty position to another is not nearly as difficult as reducing him or discharging him. Crappy team leader? Welcome to headquarters. Still crappy? Have fun on BN staff, where you will get far more personal attention from disgruntled senior NCOs who are angry that they are on staff. Good performer? Here's your fire team.

[Ken White]

I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.

Well of course there are -- the same guys will also sluff on keeping their uniform and equipment squared away and anything else their NCOs will let them get away with. So it all boils down to that first line leader.

Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men.

Yep. Question is what leader are you speaking of. Tm ldr? Sqd Ldr? Platoon Sgt / Pl or PC? Co 1SG or Cdr?

Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.

Ah. Slight change. I can almost agree with that -- except the level of physical fitness HAS to be an individual responsibility. Even as long ago as I retired, smoking troopies for fun and profit was illegal...

I just retired from the Marine Corps.

I know, I read your Intro post -- but that was too good a target to pass up...

My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well.

True but the Garrison cohesion is largely a different animal and not conducive to combat cohesion -- that's why I said watch who the Troops run around with in Garrison. In most units, only after extensive field work will they run around with sqd and platoon mates instead of others they have something else in common with.

Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct.

I agree with the theory; I suspect we'd disagree on the distance.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

We can disagree on that, specifically on whether PT as most in the Army and Marines conduct it today is a combat fitness builder or a cohesion builder of any real significance.