Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[Perpetual_Student]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

[Adam L]

This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished.

Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

[SJPONeill]

For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex. Adam L

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

[82redleg]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

[SJPONeill]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

[davidbfpo]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

[Infanteer]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

Don't know about Israel but we've had women in all branches for a few decades now. We've lost two female soldiers from the combat arms in Afghanistan - A FOO in a ambush/firefight and an armoured recce trooper to an IED.

It's really a non-issue up here.

[82redleg]

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

The standard is always the minimum, because, by definition, you can exceed it, but not fall below it. If it is not the minimum, it is a goal, not a standard.

[JMA]

... in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, ...

That's how it should be.

[Adam L]

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

I never said we should have the same scores necessary for given positions. Rather, I am suggesting that there be a single scale. A 120 should be a 120 and a 295 should be a 295. There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

[JMA]

There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

[Adam L]

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

[Uboat509]

Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.

There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor ) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.

Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.

[JMA]

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?

[JMA]

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

Exactly

[Deus Ex]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

[JMA]

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

Here is a good enough resource on PT in the military.

I asked this question earlier... and no one responded.

Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?

I would take this further by asking whether the same level of fitness is required across the board within a platoon all tasked with the same duties?

Does a recce platoon take a member on a (heavy load) 8 day patrol because he is a good signaler but is in reality unlikely to be able to make it up the first hill? Of course not. The same basic fitness/strength level is required across the whole platoon (in this example) to be able to a) complete their mission and b) be able to perform operationally when contact is made.

The gender thing does not come into it. There is a minimum fitness/strength level required.

And I would say that by adding a sub-group to the mix who can do some of the tasks and not others (due on physical limitations) makes no sense at all.

Maybe its time for some honesty on this matter and that would go something like this:

There is a societal/political requirement for women to be absorbed into the military in increasing numbers in all areas of the service. As such, for better or for worse, a dual set of standards and requirements need to set up and any negative organisational and operational effects need to just be absorbed. Just get on with it.

[120mm]

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.

[JMA]

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.