Jump to content

America's Military: Rapidly Declining


Gunboat1
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, railfancwb said:

If I was a 220 pound 6 foot tall hunk of superbly conditioned male (which I most certainly am not) I would want my partner to be able to get me to a safer place should I be injured on the job. This would be true whether I was in law enforcement, fire and rescue, or military. If my partner can do this, it would not matter what race or sex or gender my partner is. If my partner cannot do this race, sex, and gender still don’t matter. 

It’s funny you mention that, because I’m reminded of a scene from Band of Brothers. Lt. Compton (“Buck”) is shot in the buttocks and can’t run, the unit is withdrawing, two of his troopers try to pick him up and Buck says “are you kidding me, I weigh more than both of you put together — leave me for the Germans.” Lynn Compton was a big man whoplayed semipro baseball. The troopers (obviously) refuse to leave their platoon commander and the next scene is one of them looting a door off a barn, laying the LT down across it, and then 4 of them dragging the door across the ground while he holds on.

My point is: the infantry has always been made up of guys who are, generally, physically average. Some guys are short. Some are tall. Some are skinny. Some are huskier. Once you get an infantry unit in shape no one is fat, all the running and humping burns it off, but it’s just never been true that the average infantryman can pick up and carry a 6’ 220 guy together with all the gear and weapons and ammo that the infantry is weighed down with today. Even back in WWII, strong troopers in the best shape of their lives (they ran the asses off paratroopers back then) couldn’t pick up and carry a big dude. They had to come up with another solution. What matters is they got him out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Cheygriz said:

Lack of discil;ine and esprit de corps is hurting them.

 

Long haired soldiers.

soldiers allowed to wear camo out in public.

Half of them do not even own a dress uniform.

No pride in their appearance.

No more "Spit 'n' Polish."

Every soldier owns a dress uniform, only SOF guys are allowed to have long hair, and “spit ‘n’ polish” has always been a waste of time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, devildog2067 said:

Every soldier owns a dress uniform, only SOF guys are allowed to have long hair, and “spit ‘n’ polish” has always been a waste of time.

Spit n polish has always been an integral part of military discipline.

It instills Esprit de Corps.

Look at a Marine to see what all military personnel should look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

It’s funny you mention that, because I’m reminded of a scene from Band of Brothers. Lt. Compton (“Buck”) is shot in the buttocks and can’t run, the unit is withdrawing, two of his troopers try to pick him up and Buck says “are you kidding me, I weigh more than both of you put together — leave me for the Germans.” Lynn Compton was a big man whoplayed semipro baseball. The troopers (obviously) refuse to leave their platoon commander and the next scene is one of them looting a door off a barn, laying the LT down across it, and then 4 of them dragging the door across the ground while he holds on.

My point is: the infantry has always been made up of guys who are, generally, physically average. Some guys are short. Some are tall. Some are skinny. Some are huskier. Once you get an infantry unit in shape no one is fat, all the running and humping burns it off, but it’s just never been true that the average infantryman can pick up and carry a 6’ 220 guy together with all the gear and weapons and ammo that the infantry is weighed down with today. Even back in WWII, strong troopers in the best shape of their lives (they ran the asses off paratroopers back then) couldn’t pick up and carry a big dude. They had to come up with another solution. What matters is they got him out.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/25/pioneering-female-ranger-school-grad-lowering-fitness-standards-women-bad-idea.html

 

Pertinent to the discussion.

Filed under: "even a blind hog finds a strawberry once in a while."

And the Army is up to its same old game, planning to lower standards again so women can "succeed"...to the detriment of the nation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gunboat1 said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/25/pioneering-female-ranger-school-grad-lowering-fitness-standards-women-bad-idea.html

 

Pertinent to the discussion.

Filed under: "even a blind hog finds a strawberry once in a while."

And the Army is up to its same old game, planning to lower standards again so women can "succeed"...to the detriment of the nation.

You completely misunderstand what the article is about.

There are two kinds of physical fitness tests in the military: ones that have to do with actually doing the job you’re assigned to do, and ones that are used for administrative purposes.

Admin PFTs are basically just another box to check. Doing well on an admin PFT doesn’t tell you very much about someone’s ability to do the job. I had plenty of Marines who couldn’t run 3 miles in 18 minutes (required to Max the PFT) but were excellent Marines in combat, who could hump and shoot and move just fine. The infantry isn’t a track team, running 3 miles in gym shorts is much less relevant than being able to shoot and move with gear on.

Physical fitness assessments related to actual job requirements are typically pass/fail and have identical standards for both genders. They’re a different thing. This article is not about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which females are astronomically less likely to be able to do, to say nothing of the negative effects their presence has on the assigned unit.  Weaker, less cohesive and slower is NOT better.  Diversity is not our strength in this context.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, devildog2067 said:

You completely misunderstand what the article is about.

There are two kinds of physical fitness tests in the military: ones that have to do with actually doing the job you’re assigned to do, and ones that are used for administrative purposes.

Admin PFTs are basically just another box to check. Doing well on an admin PFT doesn’t tell you very much about someone’s ability to do the job. I had plenty of Marines who couldn’t run 3 miles in 18 minutes (required to Max the PFT) but were excellent Marines in combat, who could hump and shoot and move just fine. The infantry isn’t a track team, running 3 miles in gym shorts is much less relevant than being able to shoot and move with gear on.

Physical fitness assessments related to actual job requirements are typically pass/fail and have identical standards for both genders. They’re a different thing. This article is not about that.

The article is exactly about that.  The army designed a new test to better measure ability to perform combat relevant fitness tasks, implementing it in a gender neutral fashion.  And most women couldn't pass when the vast majority of men could.  So now they are planning to set different (lower) standards for females,  insisting out of the other side of their mouths that women can and should be assigned to combat units, and that they are equally capable of success there.  It's the same complete BS it has always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gunboat1 said:

The article is exactly about that.  The army designed a new test to better measure ability to perform combat relevant fitness tasks, implementing it in a gender neutral fashion.  And most women couldn't pass when the vast majority of men could.  So now they are planning to set different (lower) standards for females,  insisting out of the other side of their mouths that women can and should be assigned to combat units, and that they are equally capable of success there.  It's the same complete BS it has always been.

That is simply not true. The Army Combat Fitness Test is going to be the new physical fitness test for the whole Army. Cooks, medics, infantrymen, company clerks, truck drivers, artillerymen, everyone is going to run it. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any specific job in the US Army.

Given that it isn’t intended to assess fitness for any given specific job, but rather to assess fitness overall, defining different scoring criteria according to gender and age not only makes sense but is how it’s always worked. It works that way in the Marines also and has for literally decades. Promoting a male admin clerk over a female admin clerk because the male clerk can lift more weight makes no sense.

Before you spout off, it’s useful to know what you’re talking about. You should try it sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Per the US Army website: 

"Why has the Army transitioned to the Army Combat Fitness Test?
Evolution and adaptability are the cornerstones of our force. The Army Physical Fitness test served us for 40 years, and through our improved understanding of exercise science and physical training, we transition to the Army Combat Fitness Test. The ACFT will strengthen our fitness culture, reduce injuries, and increase Army readiness. The Army's physical readiness program and physical fitness test must evolve to reduce injuries and empower Soldiers abilities to perform those basic Soldier tasks on an age and gender neutral battlefield. The ACFT drives balanced and appropriate physical training that will reduce overuse injuries and unplanned attrition. As of April 2020, 58,000 Soldiers (equivalent to 13 Brigade Combat Teams) were non-deployable. 

Why do Soldiers who aren't in a combat arms occupational specialty need a combat fitness test?
As military operations become more complex, it is essential that Soldiers are fit to fight and be a lethal force. All Soldiers require a balance of muscular strength, power, speed, agility, coordination, flexibility, reaction time, and aerobic capacity to be prepared to execute combat tasks. The ACFT is a predictor of a Soldier's readiness and the ability to meet the physical demands of combat."

 

The Army " spouted" that, not me.  Take it up with them if you think you are in possession of superior wisdom.  (I'd advise against that.)

For the first time in 40 years, they were moving towards the right track.  But now, due to the whining of feminists, they plan to go back to lower standards to protect weaker females' benefit equities.  BS.

It's pretty simple.  Weaker soldiers don't make for a stronger force.  If they can't pass the test, they should be discharged.   The Army would be better for it.  But we will make it possible for weaker women to pass by lowering standards for them in the interest of PC.  You apparently think that makes sense.  It doesn't. 

 

Edited by Gunboat1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gunboat1 said:

 

 

Per the US Army website: 

"Why has the Army transitioned to the Army Combat Fitness Test?
Evolution and adaptability are the cornerstones of our force. The Army Physical Fitness test served us for 40 years, and through our improved understanding of exercise science and physical training, we transition to the Army Combat Fitness Test. The ACFT will strengthen our fitness culture, reduce injuries, and increase Army readiness. The Army's physical readiness program and physical fitness test must evolve to reduce injuries and empower Soldiers abilities to perform those basic Soldier tasks on an age and gender neutral battlefield. The ACFT drives balanced and appropriate physical training that will reduce overuse injuries and unplanned attrition. As of April 2020, 58,000 Soldiers (equivalent to 13 Brigade Combat Teams) were non-deployable. 

Why do Soldiers who aren't in a combat arms occupational specialty need a combat fitness test?
As military operations become more complex, it is essential that Soldiers are fit to fight and be a lethal force. All Soldiers require a balance of muscular strength, power, speed, agility, coordination, flexibility, reaction time, and aerobic capacity to be prepared to execute combat tasks. The ACFT is a predictor of a Soldier's readiness and the ability to meet the physical demands of combat."

 

The Army " spouted" that, not me.  Take it up with them if you think you are in possession of superior wisdom.  (I'd advise against that.)

For the first time in 40 years, they were moving towards the right track.  But now, due to the whining of feminists, they plan to go back to lower standards to protect weaker females' benefit equities.  BS.

It's pretty simple.  Weaker soldiers don't make for a stronger force.  If they can't pass the test, they should be discharged.   The Army would be better for it.  But we will make it possible for weaker women to pass by lowering standards for them in the interest of PC.  You apparently think that makes sense.  It doesn't. 

 

You claim you were in the military. Think hard.

These two facts are true:

1) the Army Combat Fitness Test is the only fitness test of record, i.e. the only one that produces a score that goes into your personnel file, and

2) every soldier runs the exact same version of the test, meaning a chaplain’s assistant or a pharmacy technician or a flute player in the Army band must perform the exact same tasks

Therefore: the ACFT cannot be an assessment designed to test actual job-specific physical skills. It’s literally not possible. A job-specific physical skills test would, by definition, be different for soldiers with different jobs. When I was in mortarman school we had to physically carry a mortar system and ammo 5 miles, be able to do specific gun drills in less than X amount of time, etc. What job-specific skill does a 340 pound deadlift test for an Army flute player?

Those job-specific skills tests remain in place, both in the schools system and in each individual unit. They’re pass/fail generally. They are not scored. They’re part of job training and part of any sort of readiness workup or evaluation.

The ACFT will be used for a different purpose: the test exists to ensure a basic level of physical fitness for everyone, and the score will be used to compare people for promotion because that’s how anything with a score is used in the military, right or wrong. The changes to the events from the old PFT to the new ACFT basically just reflect changes to the way people exercise. The ACFT is a crossfit-style evaluation; instead of doing sit-ups they have you doing leg tucks. It’s more of a whole-body exercise. Nothing wrong with that at all, but nothing in the ACFT is linked specifically to any given soldier’s ability to do any given job.

The original score proposal tried to split the difference between a pass/fail assessment based on a soldier’s job and an admin assessment for score, by dividing soldiers into 3 classes based on their jobs and having different minimum scores for each. This proposed change is simply recognizing the reality that a unified scoring regime for a test being taken by every soldier in the Army regardless of job does not produce useful information. Typing ability is a critical job skill for clerks, but we don’t test infantrymen on their typing speed or penalize them for promotion if they’re not able to type quickly. The logic here is the same.

The fact remains that in order to graduate from infantry training, soldiers must perform gender-neutral physical assessments based on infantry skills (or armor skills or artillery skills or whatever). The scoring system for the ACFT is a separate thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, devildog2067 said:

It’s funny you mention that, because I’m reminded of a scene from Band of Brothers. Lt. Compton (“Buck”) is shot in the buttocks and can’t run, the unit is withdrawing, two of his troopers try to pick him up and Buck says “are you kidding me, I weigh more than both of you put together — leave me for the Germans.” Lynn Compton was a big man whoplayed semipro baseball. The troopers (obviously) refuse to leave their platoon commander and the next scene is one of them looting a door off a barn, laying the LT down across it, and then 4 of them dragging the door across the ground while he holds on.

My point is: the infantry has always been made up of guys who are, generally, physically average. Some guys are short. Some are tall. Some are skinny. Some are huskier. Once you get an infantry unit in shape no one is fat, all the running and humping burns it off, but it’s just never been true that the average infantryman can pick up and carry a 6’ 220 guy together with all the gear and weapons and ammo that the infantry is weighed down with today. Even back in WWII, strong troopers in the best shape of their lives (they ran the asses off paratroopers back then) couldn’t pick up and carry a big dude. They had to come up with another solution. What matters is they got him out.

They were heroes, we still have some. I’ve been privileged to know a few, some are gone.

the one thing I learned from them;

 if you PROVE yourself, TO yourself. You don’t feel the need to prove yourself to others.

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Army rightly, FINALLY acknowledged that it exists to be a fighting, killing machine, not a social experimentation laboratory.  ANY soldier, be he/she a chaplain's assistant, a flute player, a cook or an auto mechanic may be pressed into combat duties in exigent circumstances.  Many non-combat duties which they may be suddenly and extraordinarily assigned are also physically demanding.  US Army history has several examples of when this was required.  After decades of fostering a double standard of one level of fitness required for males, and another level for the females almost ALL of whom will be unable to meet the former, the Army, after an extended and detailed process of test development, finally set one, uniform requirement.  Predictably, most Army women failed to meet even the lowest uniform standard.  And rather than saying "Ladies, if you want to be in the Army, you have to do whatever is required to pass the test.  Just like the men.  Period."  the feminists hit the roof, and the Army is immediately capitulating and lowering standards so that women can "succeed" and enjoy the benefits of Army service without providing equal capability or performance.

Those are the facts, former enlisted Marine SJW blather and static background noise notwithstanding.

That is feminism, in a nutshell.  "We want the benefits, but don't expect us to live up to the same requirements to earn them....'cause we have hoo has."

America is weaker for it.  It is wrong.  It is destructive.  And in time, we will reap the costs of that destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gunboat1 said:

I laugh in your general direction.  And I notice you can't refute what the Army said or is doing, so you resort to puerile insults of the person who beat you in debate.  Typical loser.

I posted a very long refutation. You got 1 line in and then lied about putting me on your ignore list so you wouldn’t have to respond. Now you’re lying about the fact that I posted it at all, despite the fact that it’s literally still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...