Army Combat Fitness Test Fiasco! Slides Reveal 84% of Women Failing ACFT

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Lil Mike, Oct 8, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,135
    Likes Received:
    7,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny, @Nightmare515 were having a discussion of the new Army ACFT and today I came across this article confirming what he said about female soldier's failure rate.

    Army Combat Fitness Test Fiasco! Slides Reveal 84% of Women Failing ACFT

    The only thing that fails harder than the ACFT are the soldiers forced to take it.

    According to the numbers, a jaw-dropping 36% of soldiers overall failed the test, with 64% passing. When you break it down by gender, 70% of men passed. But here is a number should kill and bury the ACFT evermore: 84% of women failed the test. Those numbers are so absurdly biased against women that I was afraid this was some sort of elaborate joke by Duffelblog.

    Here is where it gets really ugly. If 84% of women are failing this test—keep in mind, 84% of women who are in battalions specifically preparing for the ACFT—you have essentially eliminated women from the United States Army.

    I honestly can't believe the Army would let a test that would eliminate 84% of female soldiers get this far, but it looks like it's happening. Eventually this is going to hit the national news, and it's going to be treated as a scandal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I love women but combat would be the last reason I would want to share a fox hole with one.
     
    Ddyad and jay runner like this.
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,135
    Likes Received:
    7,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well this isn't just about combat positions, but all positions in the Army.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. Up On the Governor

    Up On the Governor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,418
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What’s the percentage of Lieutenant Colonels that can’t pass?

    Oh nevermind, they get waivers for everything.
     
    Ddyad, ArmySoldier and Lil Mike like this.
  5. Crownline

    Crownline Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    5,156
    Likes Received:
    4,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When I was in the army, failing the PT test resulted in being flagged for no favorable action (awards, promotions, etc). And immediately required to do at least an extra hour of PT after work every day on the part you failed.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  6. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    37,637
    Likes Received:
    15,782
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Back when I served (69-71) in the Mariune Corps there was the PFT and the Marines combat readiness test which was just referred to as the CMC.

    The Marines combat readiness test was always changing.

    Since WW ll the Marine Corps PFT has been dumbed down I believe four or five times basically removing events.
    The last dumbing down of the Marine Corps PFT (for all Marines male and female) was just a few years ago so females could qualify and serve in combat arms.


    Now the Marine Corps PFT during WW ll consisted of six events one being the duck walk.
    When I served it consisted of four events, pull-ups (palms forward), push-ups, squat thrust and the 3 mile run.

    But what about the U.S. Army's PFT during WW ll ?

    Most of today's soldiers wouldn't have done to good taking the Army's PFT that was used during WW ll.

    Below is from a PF thread from five years ago.
    Some of the links don't work anymore.

    1946 (World War II) Army Physical Fitness Test

    >" In the late 1990's, Dr. Ed Thomas was an Instructor and Doctrine Writer at the Army Physical Fitness School. Dr. Thomas served in the Infantry in 1967-69. He is one of the top military physical readiness training doctrine experts in the nation, and is often quoted in the media. For more background information about Dr. Thomas, click here.

    Dr. Thomas has been calling for reform of Army PRT since the 1980s. To stress the need for improved PRT, Dr. Thomas began giving the WWII PT test to units in and around Fort Benning. The results were sobering. Soldiers who scored in the highest percentile of pushups, for instance, could only do a fraction of their usual numbers when held to the WWII standards. This is because during WWII, fitness experts understood that the purpose of the pushup is to prepare a soldier to push somebody or something. Dr. Thomas published an article in the Fort Benning newspaper in the late 1990s explaining how the pushup quality was compromised in the early 1980s. As the quality deteriorated, the required numbers increased. Now soldiers throughout the Army make themselves less prepared to push because the doctrine reinforces poor pushups.

    PRT doctrine developed after WWII and the Korean War was aimed at mission essential battlefield performance. The squat jumper, for instance, could predict how well a soldier could assume a stable crouched firing position and then quickly recover so he could maneuver. It is not unusual today to find scores of Infantry soldiers who cannot do even a few squat jumpers to the WWII standard. The danger of doing them is high for those who have not trained their bodies to properly execute the movement, and training injuries will occur if soldiers are not taught using the three cardinal rules of progression, variety and precision.

    With the demise of functional PRT in the early 1980s, only those who served in elite units might recall today what quality physical training looked like. Rangers and Special forces held on to the classical PRT doctrine for several years after the mainstream drifted off course. Ironically, many of the principles employed in previous doctrine are considered cutting-edge today by world-class strength and conditioning coaches.

    The New York Times learned about how poorly today's soldier did on the WWII PT test, and the published an article about it.

    Take the test, but don't compromise the standard. If you want to score better on the WWII test in the future, get hold of the 1946 FM 21-20 or the 1957 TM 21-200 and start employing the PRT doctrine of those periods..."<

    continue -> 1946 (World War II) Army Physical Fitness Test

    1946 Army Physical Fitness Test Standards

    It's here -> 1946 Army Physical Fitness Test Standards


    The Old Army, It Turns Out, Was the Fitter One

    newyorktimes


    Source -> https://www.debatepolitics.com/military/210349-can-todays-soldiers-pass-u-s-armys-ww-ll-prt.html
     
    Ddyad and Lil Mike like this.
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a hot topic at work for obvious reasons. What we have all concluded is that we don't think it'll stick in the long run. What we THINK is happening is the new Sergeant Major of the Army, who is grabbing this PT test baton from the outgoing Sergeant Major, is simply playing poker to scare the crap out of everybody and force them to get in shape. This entire fiscal year is being used to implement this throughout the Army and use it as a diagnostic to gather data about the force overall. They'll make it official starting next October, supposedly.

    For one the Army can't kick out 4/5ths of it's females. Period. To all of those who hold the opinions that women shouldn't be in the military anyway or the standards should all be the same, your opinions are basically invalid. Not being mean, but what you personally think and how the real world works are two different things. Women exist, they exist in the military, and you aren't allowed to toss them out in droves. Congress will not allow it, society will not allow it, and for better or for worse the US Army is not a self contained entity that gets to do whatever it personally pleases without having to answer to anybody.

    The Army will do what it always does. It'll hold on for dear life until it is forced to change against it's will. They'll probably hold onto to this new PT test for this year to see what happens, if women don't start passing it in much greater numbers then they will alter the events and take out the events that the women are struggling with which is mainly that leg tuck thing. They'll probably keep the Combat Arms MOS's standards the same (which they should) but the rest of them will likely change.

    We laugh about the women but it's not just them. The Army is way more than just Soldiers who dig foxholes. In fact the overwhelming vast majority of the Army are basically civilian type jobs staffed with people who wear uniforms and boots who do PT in the morning. The Army isn't going to kick out it's Surgeons who can't deadlift or the rest of it's medical personnel who work in hospitals as a full time job. Not combat medics, but hospital personnel. Sorry but we need people to sit at desks and do the normal day to day jobs that comprise pretty much like 90% of the whole military.

    Move on to Aviation and it's the same hilarious song and dance. Most folks have no idea the sheer toll that flying a helicopter does to the human body. Virtually every single pilot in the Army walks out of the door and gets a check from the VA for destroyed necks and backs. Good luck getting these folks to deadlift or drag sleds around.

    The answer is simple and once again it's a nasty pill that the Army doesn't want to swallow. In a warzone when **** hits the fan would you rather have the 4000hr combat pilot who can't deadlift coming to support you or the 200hr fresh out of flight school kid with good health who can run 2 miles in 12 minutes. Everybody knows what the answer is, the Army does too, but aren't gonna swallow that pill until it's shoved down their throat.

    They'll either can this thing in the coming year or alter it or instill an unwritten shared understanding rule that A LOT of folks in these "specialized MOS's" always "pass" this new PT test "somehow". Them and pretty much anybody with Oakleaf's and above on their uniforms.

    Or they might just stick to their guns....This is the Army we are talking about and the Army is very...."different" compared to every other branch when it comes to making decisions about anything. Part of me is hoping they stick to it so I can see what happens lol.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  8. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,856
    Likes Received:
    10,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Failing PT tests consequences keep changing. I can't even keep up with it right now
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Failing PT test consequences are directly proportional to the rank and/or position you hold in the Army. They range from chapter paperwork to remedial PT to pen and ink changes on the PT card.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,856
    Likes Received:
    10,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Point proven
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  11. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,040
    Likes Received:
    5,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the Army is making this too complicated.

    Have a standard for ground combat MOS's.

    Have a standard for support MOS's.

    Keep women out of the ground combat units and have a standard for them that is appropriate for a physically fit woman.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  12. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    48,207
    Likes Received:
    6,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree. Why do REMF's need the same physical standards as 11B?
     
    Ddyad and Seth Bullock like this.
  13. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    10,932
    Likes Received:
    5,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Every soldier should be hard and hardened harder. When things get dire every position is a combat position.
     
  14. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Why should mostly men go in position to die ? If they wanted to army, they should get the full package.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  15. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,040
    Likes Received:
    5,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many people with support MOS's die in wars too. But their MOS's don't require the same level of strength as in the combat MOS's.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  16. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,181
    Likes Received:
    5,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I support letting women into combat.

    I do not support lowering the standards of training and readiness to get more of them into combat.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,135
    Likes Received:
    7,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh oh, someone's not making general!
     
    Ddyad and Seth Bullock like this.
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,135
    Likes Received:
    7,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't disagree with that in theory, but the practical aspect is that we have a generation of new recruits that had a hard time with the old PT test.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    3,449
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh my...If they were to get the hardest they could they would live in the field 24/7..
     
  20. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds good on paper. The reality is that for one it's not feasible and two the majority of the military are not combat Soldiers. Even in the recent transitional phase playing Team America World Police in Afghanistan and Iraq most Soldiers still never left the wire even though more than just Infantrymen were walking around. As the running gag always goes: Deployment! Your experience may vary .

    Plus the reality of the situation is that if it ever came to the point where the finance and mortuary affairs and band members are digging machine gun nests then we've already lost the war.

    Trying to make everybody "grunts" because it sounds good on paper is not going to result in a smaller and more fit Army as is being proclaimed by the think tanks who made up this thing. It will result in a smaller more fit Army critically undermanned and unable to even operate because like it or not the vast majority of Soldiers in the Army sit at desks and do paperwork all day and don't actually fight wars. We need people to sit at desks all day....They are what keep the machine running.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    2,692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When I was in the Navy back in the late 80s/early 90s, I can remember people being sent away to military fat farms when they failed PT tests and/or got too fat.

    Officers too. There was a blimpo lieutenant we called "ComNavSnackPac", and he would disappear on little vacations, and come back 20 lbs lighter.

    Does that not happen anymore because fat shaming hurts the fee fees?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019 at 2:31 PM
    Ddyad likes this.
  22. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    10,932
    Likes Received:
    5,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    afaik the record for the longest patrol in Vietnam was 44 days.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  23. Ddyad

    Ddyad Advisor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    32,325
    Likes Received:
    11,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps, but you always have to remember the remarkable exceptions.

    Joan of Arc, Elizabeth The Great, Katherine The Great, Boudicca ...

    Women, when fully committed are deadly as hell regardless of their level of fitness.

    Fortunately, almost all women have other priorities.
     
  24. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think keeping the standards high for combat MOS's while simultaneously allowing women access to them is the best of both worlds and the easiest way to appease political correctness. The high standards will prevent virtually all women from being able to enter those fields yet doesn't force the Army to explicitly ban women from those roles. It will take a physical specimen of a woman to meet the standards required for combat arms, if they do it then by all means.

    My hesitation with allowing women in combat arms has nothing to do with physical capability nor is it grounded in any sort of sexism towards women. I believe women have every right to serve in the military. My issue stems from having spent many years in combat arms serving as both Armor and Infantry and I've seen first hand the sheer amount of problems it causes when women are introduced into that environment. For me it's a difficult position to have because it's not exactly the women's fault in all cases. But they create an absolute mess albeit completely unintentionally.

    During my deployment back in the surge days we lived on a small outpost. There were female Soldiers on the outpost who were there because men aren't allowed to touch women in Afghan culture so they tagged along with us on patrols sometimes to search female civilians. During the span of that deployment there was:

    1 case of attempted actual rape
    1 dismissal for sexual assault
    1 case of video taped adultery where both parties were married with spouses back home who decided to have sex and record it then accidentally leave the recording on a table which was promptly distributed to everybody
    1 case of non video taped adultery
    2 cases of deployment relationships gone wrong with one female being so distraught that her boyfriend no longer wanted to have sex with her that she completely went on strike and refused to work anymore and was sent home early. Not exaggerating, that is the reason why she quit, her "boyfriend" was/is a good friend of mine who we continue to harass even to this day because she was the cook and she quit cooking when he dumped her so we all blamed it on him and gave him crap for years after.
    2 cases of physical altercations between males because 1 guy thought the woman was his girlfriend until the other guy explained to him that she was in fact "everybody's" girlfriend. (She was...)

    Again, not all of that is explicitly the women's fault. It takes two to tango, and for the majority of the women out there they were willing to tango....married or not. I'm a realist, not politically correct, and I know this is a "bad phrase" in modern times but well....if you send 40 dudes, most of whom are like 18 to 20 years old, to an isolated warzone for over a year and you also send 5 women with them then what the hell do you think is going to happen...

    Point is, it's a recipe for disaster and it's not exactly the female's fault. They aren't doing anything "wrong", they are just "there", and them being there in itself causes way more problems than it's worth to allow them there in my personal opinion. What I explained was just one deployment, I have a whole other list of issues that happened regarding females on different deployments....It always happens...
     
    Seth Bullock and Ddyad like this.
  25. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't seen "fat farms" so the speak. What usually happens is they send you to a remedial PT program to where you go do specialized PT with the rest of the failures in the morning which is usually longer and harder than normal PT and then in the evenings you go and do it again with them. I've never seen it to where they kick you out of the unit and send you somewhere for awhile and you come back later on.
     

Share This Page