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:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK so I guess we don't disagree after all.

    I'm reminded that back in "my day," we were heavily dependent on the big guys for a lot of the (literal) heavy lifting, yet they were almost all on the weight control program. Some of them would have made fine NCO's but because of their body type they had no future in the Army.
     
  2. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And therein lies the underlying problem with the old APFT and this new ACFT and the Army in general regarding fitness. The Army wants everyone to be equal for no other reason than the fact that we are all Soldiers. This new era of fitness for the Army that was developed by the Army sounds like it was developed by civilians who don't understand the Army to be honest. This sounds like the result of the common civilian misconception that the Army is all combat troops and whatnot. Sure there should be SOME minimum fitness standard for the Army and the military in general, I mean it is the military after all. But creating a new fitness test that most women can't pass just makes no logical sense when 99% of all women in the Army have no actual REASON to need to be able to do these types of exercises.

    As you mentioned earlier about arbitrary testing, the ACFT is an arbitrary test. There is literally no reason whatsoever why 99% of women in the Army need to be able to do a leg tuck in order to successfully perform their assigned duties. Hell there's no reason whatsoever why the majority of the Army in general needs to be able to run 2 miles. But when asked that specific question the new SMA just flat out said, more or less, "It's there because I want it to be".

    There is a reason why the ASVAB has specific categories and points for each category and it's not just a "You have to get a 70% overall to pass". Each MOS requires different baseline skills and baseline levels of intelligence. The GT score that I was required to have for my MOS is a hell of a lot higher than the one for Armor. And the specific categorical scores for Geospatial Engineer are a hell of a lot different than the requirements for Infantry. But using the logic behind the Army's new fitness test we should just arbitrarily raise the GT score to my requirements for everybody even though there is no demonstrable reason whatsoever why the average Infantry grunt needs the technical skills and mathematical comprehension of a helicopter pilot.

    As I said before, if somebody can demonstrate to me WHY a female needs to be able to do a leg tuck to serve in the US Army I am all ears. This isn't a question that I'm asking alone, these sorts of questions regarding this ACFT in general are a hot discussion at work and letters have even be written to high brass and elected officials asking these very questions.

    As of today, the only responses received have been "Because I said so". Which to me is an unacceptable answer.
     
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well I can't think of a more Army answer than, "Because I said so"
     
  4. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly don't think the powers at be actually have an answer outside of that.

    Simply going with the age old adage of "Follow orders" on this one.

    Oh well, I'm 90% sure the Army will blink first in regards to this female failure rate if it doesn't improve significantly. The Marines tried to pull this a few years ago and they were forced to change their minds because as I said before neither the Pentagon, Congress, the specific branch, nor society, will allow any branch to just up and change the fitness standards which will cause most females to then become unfit for service. Marines tried to make women do pull ups back in 2014 instead of the dead arm hang for their PT test. Most female Marines couldn't do it and since the Marines aren't allowed to just boot out most of their females they had to change that policy pretty quickly. But in an effort of fairness they made it to where both men and women can opt out of pullups entirely and just do more pushups instead.

    Army will be no different. No branch will be allowed by Congress to have a fitness standard that disqualifies the majority of women from service. The Marines weren't allowed to do that and the Army won't be allowed to either.
     
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's what I've always thought, that the Army would pull back at the prospect of kicking out the majority of female soldiers, but it's getting rather late in the game. This goes live in October, and I never thought it would have gotten this far.
     
  6. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the Armys game, they always do this. The push for something and they ensure that they mean it until they are forced through circumstance to give in. PT failures have consequences for Soldiers, big ones such as being flagged for promotion and separation.

    This is 2019, for all intents and purposes 2020. Could you imagine the royal hell that would come about if the US Army had a new program that basically bars all women from promotion and/or kicks them out? And also turns away nearly all women who wish to join?

    Yeah right, even if Congress backed this American society in 2020 wouldn't. It would take one CNN article titled "New Army program disqualifies most women" and all hell would break loose. I hope they change this for that reason alone. We have enough problems as it is with this new PC society of ours slowly digging it's crummy fingers into the Army, I don't want to deal with the absolute **** storm that would come about if this actually happened.

    I'm pretty sure at some point this year we'll see an Army Times article saying "The ACFT is under review in order to ensure Soldiers are provided the essential tools and training necessary to meet the challenges of a complex and ever changing battlefield."

    Or they'll send out a memo or something. There's no way around it. My rational brain as both a Soldier and a civilian just doesn't see how there's any way in hell they would be allowed to do this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2019
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Common sense says they'll put the brakes on this but it seems that would have already happened by now. I'm surprised it's gone on this long.
     
  8. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We'll see. The mature and professional half of me doesn't want to deal with the fallout of this nonsense but the other less mature half of me is sort of excited to watch this upcoming **** storm.

    It extends beyond just the women failing at alarming rates. My community itself is stacked full of people that are way too physically broken down to do this new ACFT. Hell most people in my line of work are on permanent profiles and can't even do some of the events in the old APFT. Yet the Army "allows" us to sort of get away with that because we too highly specialized, expensive to train, and critical to mission requirements for them to boot us out over something as trivial as being unable to run. We're one of those communities that the Army itself hates with an absolute passion as it is because we are all basically living breathing textbook examples of how NOT to be Soldiers lol. But they deal with us because we are arguably the most critical aspect of any battlefield.

    As unprofessional as it sounds we are all actually pretty giggity about this at work. Having to handle the situation with the women is one thing, but I along with my colleagues are pretty excited to see how the Army plans on "dealing" with US when it comes new PT test time lol.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  9. Up On the Governor

    Up On the Governor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Do what? Institute a PFA that would significantly reduce their numbers and stop people from joining? The Army isn’t the branch people are clamoring to be in and thus the Army can’t afford to go through with this test. You take what you get. And not everyone needs to be tested to the same extreme as 1% of your fighting force. I thought we had this discussion already, but it’s the Army and I get it. I’m used to having to repeat myself 40 times.
     
  10. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, as I said this is simply the Army trying to hold it's ground until it's forced to blink out of having no choice. It's bred from this anecdotal philosophy of "a stronger and more fit fighting force" nonsense conjured up by the old SMA. That sort of thing sounds good on paper and it WOULD be better but it's not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.

    There is a reason why not all Infantry are Rangers. There's a reason why not all Sailors are SEALs and there's a reason why not all pilots are SOAR. Yes it would absolutely be better if the US Army had an entire Infantry fighting force comprised of nothing but Army Rangers but it's not realistic by any means which is why there are only a few thousands of them. Not everybody needs to be an athlete to be in the Army, as you said the actual fighting force of the Army is only like 1 or 2%, the majority of everybody else has what is more akin to a normal civilian desk job than to a grunt.

    Nobody needs to be able to do leg tucks or deadlift in order to do a desk job, which is what comprises the overwhelming vast majority of the Army and includes the overwhelming vast majority of all females in the Army.

    I agree with keeping height and weight standards (but they need to seriously be updated for the modern era), folks should at least look the part for the most part, but trying to make everybody into gym rats for literally no reason other than because they want it that way is stupid.
     
  11. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think one should base what the intended specialty is in this is a person failed but not horribly so limit the options a man who failed still can fight if given no choice but just don't assign him a combat role but support a nurse isn't likely to see combat or a mechanic unless the enemy is literally passed the defenses and the combat soldiers are failing - then give them a rifle. Women no difference. The British Army does this and they are not pushovers. A friends grandkid over in the UK joined up and is a Chef so hardly needs infantry physical standards a rifleman needs and his tests were the minimum physical standard bar during his assessment.
     
  12. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's sort of what they are trying to do with this new test. The test itself is the same for everybody but the passing requirements vary based on your particular job. For example Infantry has the most strenuous standards while most logistics have the lowest.

    The problem is the test itself that includes some exercises that contradict the aforementioned. Deadlifts, 2 mile runs, and leg tucks, which are half of the test, are all exercises alone that have no real reason to be included in a fitness test for the majority of the Army. Many are saying that the test scales fine and that they mitigate the differences in jobs by the passing requirements. I say that the test itself is a problem and there should be completely different tests for different jobs, not different passing requirements for the same test.

    Theres no reason why the finance clerk needs to be able to deadlift at all, let alone deadlift 140lbs.
     
  13. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Completely disagree. If the finance clerk is deployed and come under fire under transport (insert scenario here), and their security is pinned...I fully expect them to be able to act like a soldier, carry what needs to be carried, and fight. Especially if the war is conventional as opposed to our current wars.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  14. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its the same running gag that we tell our crew chiefs every day. If you guys are picking up rifles and firing at the enemy then we've already lost the war.

    This sounds good on paper, all of these sorts of proposals sound good on paper but are not practical in reality. As I said before we WOULD be better if every single one of our Infantry Soldiers were Army Rangers, we'd be better if all of our engineers were Sappers or all of our pilots were SOAR trained. We'd have a stronger and more mentally tough and disciplined force overall if every Soldier was required to go through SERE C like I did. It's simply not feasible, too many people would fail which is why we don't do that.

    All leaders are taught the same premises, have tough and realistic training but also have realistic expectations. Expectation management is a term I'm sure you've heard on a number of occasions. The key word here is realistic. The Army has set the bar too high and the REALITY that the Army doesn't want to face is being presented with each iteration of this new ACFT throughout units. Folks are failing in massive numbers. The Army's response is what the Army's response always is, "do better". That sounds good on paper, it's not realistic.

    OK "do better", we'll they aren't. So now what? This is way more complex than just doing what we want at the lower levels. You are the Chief of Staff, or the SMA, and you have 80+% of your female Soldiers who cannot pass your new PT test. You can't just kick them all out, as much as you want to, as much as we want you to, you can't actually do that. You have to explain to Congress as well as American society and the media why you have a new standard that has barred 80% of females from the Army. You have to explain why no females can receive promotions to leadership positions and why virtually no females can join the Army in general.

    For better or for worse this isn't the 60's anymore this is 2020. You aren't going to be allowed to do that and no explanation will suffice for that. That's how the world IS right now, not how we wish it was, but how it actually is. It doesn't matter what the actual reason is behind it, you will not be allowed to have ANY policy or standard that bars the majority of women from service it doesn't matter what rationale is presented as justification.

    This is the same modern society that MADE the Army allow women into combat arms in spite of protests from pretty much everybody including high brass leadership. You really think this society in 2020 will allow a standard that bars the majority of women from joining in the first place? Good luck...
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  15. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    100% disagree, and in fact, I think that POV is kinda lazy.

    If they are wearing the uniform, they should be able to pick up a weapon, and all equipment needed to carry out a mission. Point being, if a finance clerk can't meet the physical standards, find another one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2019
  16. patentlymn

    patentlymn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Soldiers get rotated out of the front lines to clerk positions. When the clerk positions are filled with non combatants that is not a possibility.
     
  17. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alright, find another one. Well we can't because we don't have anybody to meet the standard.

    Now what?

    We have a recruitment problem as it stands right now, the majority of America's young people are not even physically fit for military service as we speak under the current standards and those who are qualified are not joining up in the numbers we need to fill the ranks. With the implementation of the new ACFT those numbers will plummet further and with that of those already serving 80+% of the females will be unqualified for service. Can't pass a PT test? You know the drill.

    So, General. You are in charge. You can't meet our recruitment numbers and virtually all of your women currently serving are on the chopping block. We are the US Army, we are the largest branch of the US military. We cannot operate as a small branch like the Marines our US military war machine depends on a large standing Army.

    What is your solution? Where are you going to "find another" finance clerk who can leg tuck and deadlift?

    That POV is not lazy, it's reality. It's the same as what I mentioned about aviators earlier on in this discussion. Army aviators are held together by duct tape and pain killers and the majority physically cannot do many of the exercises on this new ACFT. We are currently in the middle of an aviator retention crisis to where the majority of mid grade and senior aviators are walking out the door on their own accord and they can't refill the ranks anywhere near fast enough. And even in the instances where they can get new pilots you end up with terribly ill equipped units full of brand new junior pilots and like 2 or 3 experienced ones. The experience gap is massive because everyone is taking their experience and walking out the door. Would you rather have an under strength unit full of experienced mid grade and senior pilots or an under strength unit full of flight school graduates who can fly well enough to keep themselves from crashing and little more.

    Or better yet with the alarm bell sounds and you make a call on the radio for help who do you want on the other end of that transmission? The 180 hour flight school graduate who can sled drag and run 2 miles in 10 mins? Or the 3000 hour senior aviator with 6 combat tours who can't run or deadlift because his neck and back are destroyed? Take it from somebody in this line of work, you REALLY don't want the new kid showing up to save you in a situation like that.

    Those are the hard pills the Army doesn't want to swallow. But go ahead and stick to the notion of a "smaller and more fit" fighting force. Us in my line of work are seriously sitting back with popcorn waiting to see how well that works out when they try to play this lol.
     
  18. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't have people to meet the standard? A finance clerk? I have 30 11bs that I can train to work quickbooks (or any other finance/billing software), expense reporting, and administrative work (which is very easy).

    Once again, there's no excuse a finance admin cannot easily meet the standards. If one cannot, it's VERY easy to get one that can.

    We have the "Unit bitch" assisting the S2 that was almost an ASVAB waiver. He now does presentations, assists with briefs, and is a wizard in IT.

    It blows my mind that people think that some people don't need to meet the physical standard. If that's the case, I question the leadership of said unit(s).
     
  19. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm quoting statistics not anecdotal evidence. Look up the statistics regarding military aged civilians qualified for service in 2019, and also look up the Army recruitment statistics. The raw numbers, not the Army's way of magically meeting recruitment numbers last year by simply reducing the recruitment numbers to make it look better for Congress. These numbers are with current fitness standards.

    So your solution is to take your Infantrymen and make them finance clerks. Who fills the ranks of those Infantrymen then? Or are we going to have everyone pulling double duty now to fill all of these female roles that are now vacant?

    You didn't address the pilot issue either. Honest question, not trolling you. What are you gonna do about the aviation community? These guys are mostly banged up, they CAN'T do your new PT test. Are you going to just sort of look the other way in regards to aviation or are you going to kick out roughly 50% of your pilots when you are currently only at about 65-75% manned as it is?

    These are real questions that need to be addressed. I have no issue with requiring folks to meet the physical standard. I have an issue with just raising the standard to the point where 86% of females can't do it which leaves a massive gap in manning that requires back fill in an age where we can't even get enough people to join OR stay in as it is.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  20. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The stats are meaningless. All you need is mediocre training. If we can mold a less than average American from a trailer park into a soldier...we can teach them to use a simple database and process paperwork while easily meeting physical standards.

    Once again- no excuse.
     
  21. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stats are by no means meaningless. Statistics show the actual big picture. The Army is bigger than your little unit and it's bigger than my little unit. Like it or not we require bodies in the Army. We need a certain amount of bodies to keep the Army going, if we literally do not have enough bodies then what exactly are we supposed to do?

    Take my unit for example, we literally do not have enough people in it. We can't just magically blink people into existence. We're spread thin just like everyone else. We need X amount of crew chiefs, we literally don't have X amount of crew chiefs and we have nowhere to pull from because there are no more to pull from. We need X amount of pilots, we are short 5. We can't just blink 5 more pilots into existence. A flight school class graduates next week. 20 people. We need 5, but so does Bliss, Hood, Stewart, Carson, etc. So we get 2. But 10 are ETS'ing/PCS'ing in March. So we need 5, we get 2, we lose 10.

    What are we supposed to do?

    Yeah we can take the average American and turn them into Soldiers in 8 weeks or however long basic is now. The problem is that in order to turn that average American civilian into a Soldier we need him to actually voluntarily walk into the recruiters office and sign up. Most average Americans are literally not qualified for military service and the ones who are qualified are not walking into the recruiters office in the numbers we require to fill our ranks. Hence missing the recruitment goals.

    What are we supposed to do? Draft people?

    Once again you haven't actually answered the direct questions being asked here and keep going around in circles. The bottom line is simple and I'll make it even easier. You have 70 people. You NEED 100 people. With your new PT test you have disqualified 20 of your 70 people. Now you have 50 people. You need 50 more. Only 10 signed up to let you turn them into Soldiers. So now you have 60 people.

    Where are you going to get the other 40 from? "No excuse" isn't an answer. The question is very direct.
     
  22. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're shifting the goal posts. I'm responding to your comment about a finance clerk and meeting physical standards. Your particular unit is not an average unit. It's specialized. The training is very long for most MOS, and very important. But they still need to meet the standards.

    A finance clerk? Give me a ****ing break. Any one of mine could do that in their sleep. And many are borderline asvab waivers.

    Comparing apples to microwaves
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
  23. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I'm not. The same exact logic remains the same. OK we won't use my unit, we'll use a normal average BCT. Same thing applies.

    You need people to run the S shops and the E companies and supply. You need 100 people. You have 70 right now. Your new PT test just disqualified 20 so now you have 50. 10 people willingly signed up from the recruitment office so now you have 60. Between your S shops and Supply you need 100 people. You only have 60. Where are you going to get the other 40? You NEED people to do these jobs. According to your earlier post you said you would train the Infantrymen to do those jobs then. Alright then who is going to back fill the ranks you just lost by training your 11Bs to be the Finance clerks? Is your solution to then double train these people? Have the guys play Infantry on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and have them fixing my travel card paperwork on Tuesdays and Thursdays?

    My unit is unique, the manning requirements of my unit are not unique nor an isolated case in the Army overall. The manning issues in my unit are evident throughout the entire force, some worse than others.

    I believe what you are failing to understand here, or unwilling to admit, is that we as an Army, not just as my unit, do not have enough bodies right now. We also do not have enough bodies coming in to back fill the ones we need and the ones we are losing. More people are leaving the Army than are joining the Army, these are raw facts that cannot just be dismissed because they are inconvenient.

    So once again the question is simple and I honestly don't understand why you will not answer it. Where are you going to get the bodies you need to back fill the Army?

    There is nothing wrong with saying I don't know....If you have an actual idea of where these bodies are going to come from then I am more than willing to hear it. If you don't know then that's fine, just say I don't know. Because I can tell you right know that I don't know, but if you do then lets hear it.
     
  24. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is nothing but an excuse. If I have 100 men, and I have finance clerks, comms, supply...etc...There's absolutely ZERO reason why any of them cannot meet the basic physical standards. If not, I'll take an 11B, reclass, and teach them how to use a computer or a radio.

    If you can teach someone land nav, you can easily teach them how to process an expense report.
     
  25. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, there is ZERO reason WHY they can't meet the physical standard. But they don't. They SHOULD, but they don't.

    So alright, as statistics and raw data proves, out of your 100 Soldiers you're going to lose about 20 due to the new fitness standard. So your solution is to take 20 of your Infantrymen and reclass them into commo or supply or finance, etc. So now you're down 20 Infantrymen. You had 100 support personnel and 100 Infantrymen. You lost 20 support personnel so you back filled them with 20 Infantrymen. Now you have 100 support and 80 Infantrymen.

    You're still short 20 overall bodies, now short 20 Infantrymen. You gonna just keep operating undermanned and shuffling people around? Your unit is deploying soon, mission calls for 100 11B's. You don't have 100 you only have 80. Hell thats being generous, the reality is you're going to lose a lot more supply people from failing PT than that if we operate using raw data and not anecdotal evidence.

    Where are you going to get the other 20 from? Pull them back out of supply and finance? Now your S shops are short. We need those people too. No matter what you do you're still short personnel. Plus your 20 Infantrymen are pissed off because they signed up to be Infantry, not finance. They won't want to do that, so they quit when their initial contract is up. Now you have less people.

    So from what I understand your solution to when, not if, the Army is gutted from new fitness standards you will simply reclass your combat troops into these support roles. But that leaves you with less combat troops...But your combat troops are the only ones who can pass this new ACFT in reasonable numbers, all of the support units especially the heavy female staffed ones are bombing this thing to the tune of 80+%. So now your entire unit is comprised of combat troops. Now we take your unit and expand it to the overall Army.

    98% of the Army is not combat arms. How is combat arms + some of the support personnel who can pass the new PT test supposed to man and operate 98% of the US Army?
     

Share This Page