Combat Arms Physical Assessment Test for the Army
The Army Times reports that the Army has finally developed it’s physical assessment test for folks wanting to go into combat arms specialties;
Soldiers will have to complete the four-part [Occupational Physical Assessment Test] to enter certain military occupational specialties. The test also eventually will expand to help recruits determine which jobs they’re qualified for.
This new requirement comes as the Army works to integrate women into its previously closed combat specialties.
The OPAT consists of four events: a medicine-ball throw, standing long jump, deadlift and interval run.
Unlike other Army fitness tests, the OPAT only has one scoring scale, with no separate charts for age or gender.
Obviously, no one talked to the folks at Building OneFour at Fort Benning. None of those four events address any concerns about allowing people into the infantry – maybe armor or artillery, but certainly not infantry.
A swing and a miss, Army, try again.
Thanks to Bobo for the link.
Category: Army News
BLDG 1 at Benning is the base of the flag pole. MCOE HQ is BLDG 4, McGinnis-Wickam Hall. Just sayin.
Not really seeing how the OPAT has anything to do with Cavalry either.
Well, back in the old days Building One was the Infantry Center. I guess things have changed.
I thought it was always building 4? The one that looks like a big computer punch card?
Maybe you’re right. My memory is shot.
I can’t remember what the number is either. The last time I was there for a class was at the Infantry Officer Vietnam Orientation Course in May of 1970.
Or, as we used to call it, building snore.
Yeah, but it have a good display of muzzle loaders and bolt action service rifles.
Springfield 1903 for the win.
I ETS’ed from Benning in 1994 and it was Building 4 back then.
Artillery is not for women. There is much heavy lifting involved. HE rounds were 98lbs back in the day. Then you have to store them in racks. I feel for any woman who has to load those rounds into the racks on a M-992. It holds over 90 rounds. Also, if you are advance party you are technically reconnaissance carrying reels of wire, phone, and stakes along with whatever else is in your ruck.
If the women are big enough and fit enough to handle the load, 100 pounds should not be an issue. If you’re short like me and without a lot of muscle mass, it would be an issue. The real difference between men and women is the amount of muscle mass. A wiry man is mostly muscle. A ‘wiry’ woman is just skinny without a lot of muscle, UNLESS she has put in gym time with weight training.
But the real issue is how many women want to be tankers or artie gals? I wouldn’t want that job.
I was a artilleryman. I spent a lot of time on advance party which was fun. We were pretty close. But we learned to do every job. Funny. I did mostly AP during Desert Storm and got a AAM for driving. That being said the Army was not for someone as free spirited as me so I did one hitch and got out. Still some good memories and great friendships.
How many women want to be tankers or artie girls?
Careerist officers.
11 2LTs graduated IOBC and 13 graduated AOBC.
I’m sure they all did fantastic on OPAT.
How they did on TCGST wasn’t mentioned.
Mounting the M2 was probably changed to a team event and “load a HEAT round in 7 seconds” was probably removed from the test. Or the whole test was probably done away with.
“The real difference between men and women is the amount of muscle mass”
That’s a gross oversimplification.There are many differences including the oxygen carrying capacity of the circulatory systems under identical work, angles of mechanical pull due to skeletal differences, hormonal influences, general caliber of many supporting tissues regardless of muscle circumference….to name a few.
These are especially important in jobs requiring stamina as well as the amount of occupational damage they would suffer over time compared to a male.
If muscle mass were the only difference females would equal male competitors simply by attaining muscle mass, but they don’t.
You think this princess can handle the heavy load.
https://www.army.mil/article/164521/First_woman_cannon_crew_member_graduates_AIT
315DL….that’s so cute
I did that with a herniated disc in my back and a labral tear in my hip.
Her husband said she was a better soldier that he ever was….wonder if he was dipping in the pool?
I was a) being brief, and b) not going to get into the argument that I’m 5’2″ and could handle a 100-lb load because I was accustomed to it. My western saddle weighed 125 pounds, putting it on the back of a 16 hand (64 inches at the withers) horse taller than I am was simple stuff. Again, I was ACCUSTOMED TO IT. Should I go into the rest of the heavy stuff that I handled? I am no exception to the rule in what I did.
So what is the real issue here? Turf? You guys ALL react to news like this as if your ‘treehouse club’ is being invaded by 2nd grade girls.
Putting a saddle up as you describe is proof you aren’t weak, but is not the same as being on a Howitzer crew for even one day. I’m not specifically arguing that anyway per se.
I’m simply stating physiological facts as a matter of central tendency. (Argue with the data abundant via the ACSM)I didn’t say no woman can do it, ever. If simply having a discussion of facts is going to be reduced to calls of misogyny then there’s no sense having a discussion. It’s my opinion however, that oversimplifying the differences does a disservice to the women. Oversimplifications imply that any woman that isn’t as strong or enduring as any man is just an example of a failure to train.
I think that’s being unfair and can lead to the application of ignorant methods of training that can lead to needless injuries and disabilities.
I’m just trying to understand here, that’s all, because there are plenty of women who do have the right body type to do that kind of continuous heavy work, but do not want to do it. They would probably hold up better under the stress on a longer term basis than someone like me. That was my point. I could do it, but would most likely wear down sooner than my male counterpart.
I’m not ignoring facts or research, OR the male-female differences. I agree completely that oversimplification will ignore the real differences that make it easier in the long term for men to do those jobs. It isn’t being addressed the way it should be, and as I said, the women whose physical structure would make it easier for them to manage that kind of load may not be interested in it at all.
The ‘guy’ general
reactions, such as ‘princess’, are consistently ‘no girls allowed’, with no recognition of the accomplishments by the individual.
Individuals don’t have much of a place in the military. It’s a team sport, and I am one of those who think that sex does not benefit a team; hetero or homo. As much as I, ah, appreciate the, um, accomplishments of Ronda Rousey I would not want to be in an infantry squad with her.
I have seen a couple of instances where weapons were drawn and even fired over something as trivial as a can of mandarin oranges. Given the raging hormones of yoots it is only a matter of time before someone is killed over sex. Just like civilian life. Not to mention all the other psychological and emotional crap that goes along with male-female or male-male or female-female relations.
Oh, I understand all of that, timactual. I’m only referring to the instant reaction to ‘girls in the club – eeww!’ that is repeated over and over.
It was much worse with sailors in the 1960s. We GIRLS were only there to ‘get a man and get out’ or ‘only good for one thing’, with no nod to what we actually did.
When is that going to change and what does it take?
What about the Soviet women recruited by the Red Army as snipers during WWII? They were responsible for many kills. What about American and British women serving in the Pacific during WWII?
And women serving in Korea and Vietnam?
These accomplishments are frequently ignored because of this ‘boy’s only club’ mentality that does not seem to go away. It’s just silly to have to keep pointing out the accomplishments of women past and present to counteract that mindset.
Slavs had NKVD Officers standing over their shoulders. Life in the Red Army was much different than the modern U.S. Army. Also, the Soviets were fighting for their existence to boot.
Oh. The American and British never had women in combat arms during the aforementioned eras.
With all due respect PH-2, an infantry rifle company is not the boy’s clubhouse for grade-schoolers. I spent months living in the jungle in the RVN with about 110 men. I can’t imagine the problems I would have to have dealt with as the C.O. if I had 4 to 10 women in each of my platoons. This coed shit might work in the Navy, it doesn’t play where we operate in the boonies, carrying all our gear, with death lurking around the next bend in the trail. Men being men and women being women, the problems are insurmountable.
The women serving in VietNam were nurses in the field hospitals at Division and Corps base camps. They had 3 hots and a cot in the rear. They were not in combat or even close to it. They were not quartered with men. All I can say about the Russians is they had the ability to shoot anyone anytime that got out of line. The Israelis tried mixing women in army units and it was a failure because of the fraternization problems, and they went back to all female units, but they still don’t make them line infantry.
I know what the women in VN did, rgr. Not arguing that point. I don’t think the mixed units is a good idea,either, but there are plenty of women who are doing the tougher jobs now and not getting headlines for it. The peshmerga train women for combat but they are all-female units and do not mix in with units of men. There is no reason to not train women in the tougher jobs if they can take the physical punishment, but I think the mixed units is a bad idea, too.
Ah. I see. Kind of like The Little Rascals and their “HeMan Womanhaters Club”?
Of course you are probably too young to remember The Little Rascals.
Not really, as I am probably older than you are. But apparently many females think that trope is why most of us who have actually fought in combat units think this coed social experiment is wrong headed. I think it is not worth its cost and the problems it will create. Most of us who are actual infantrymen know this experiment will lose battles, get people wounded or killed, and impair unit cohesion. Mixing men and women in the same squad or platoon will result in unwarranted pregnancies, claimed sexual assaults, jealousy, romantic triangles, discipline problems, and mission failure. When your girlfriend is about to get killed or wounded, who you going to be looking out for? Not likely your squad/fireteam mates or accomplishing the mission. So someone explain to me how this little SJW campaign in the military is going to help us win any battle or war. It is nothing but more progtard gender fluid horseshit.
“When your girlfriend is about to get killed or wounded, who you going to be looking out for?” I would be okay w/o the girlfriend part. If any female is in a pickle, some man steps up to help. I think this whole issue is ridiculous. If women want death and destruction, start with an all-female Division. Until there are sufficient numbers of women to constitute one, no.
Love the logic. Someone who appreciates women enough not to want them in combat roles is a woman hater.
I seriously doubt the Army could ever recruit enough women to 11B’s to form an Infantry brigade let alone a division and all its support units. There will be so few of them that I imagine they will be dispersed into majority male units and that’s when all the fun and games will begin.
I wouldn’t want her in my section. She is just going to cause the men to have to work harder.
Prove it, Chip.
I doubt they will ever have her load the ammo racks to protect her. Imagine holding a 98lbs round like a hamburger and shoving it into one of the upper racks. We had a couple guys who struggled with it and so I got stuck doing more than my share. Because our Ammo Team Chief did not deploy. They made a weaker NCO and E-4 responsible for that detail. They could not handle it so I had to split time being a Ammo Team Leader and Advance Party Team member during Desert Storm. It ended up being interesting when my Advance Party fill in twisted his ankle and I was forced to do both. It’s not a easy MOS. There is more to it than pulling a cord. Much more.
Yes. Those two 170lbs men could not handle the physical nature of the job so why would I think some woman could?
Why? Fair question: only because some women could handle it and some could not, just like those guys you mention. We are not all constructed equally in the physical sense.
And as I have previously said, there are some women who could handle it but would not want to do it and would be in other MOSes.
There are places in the Army for women. I’ll never understand why any woman would want to be combat arms. In this day and age the Army would not even be my branch of choice.
That is exactly my point. I would not choose that kind of work, but what I did is considered part of combat, so I would now end up in a combat arena, regardless.
Oh cool. I had no idea you served in the horse drawn artillery. That was a long long time ago.
🙂
Ha! Same things apply even today.
My god, PH-2, how much silver is on that saddle? The heaviest one I ever hefted was only about 35-40 lbs., a double skirted western saddle w/ no silver.
A lady whom I respect highly was an Army officer over in the sandboxes with several tours.
She is an average height and build Korean-ancestry lady, had on a 90# kit most of the time, and had to get out and leave “her” people when the toll on her frame became too great. Single with no family, the troops were her family- and it hurt her to have to leave. But staying in any longer would have increased the damage to her body.
I don’t doubt the will, the drive, the desire, or the capabilities of the ladies. And I don’t deny the impact on the guys bodies – Airborne son lost a couple of inches due to disk compression while a SAW gunner in Iraq, and of course jumping out of perfectly good airplanes does have an impact “down the road.” Operating at that level of performance, the effect gender-specific physiological differences is magnified.
It will be the rare lady who can do it, and I suspect the long-term damage on their bodies will be greater.
Oh, I don’t deny the impact and physical toll on your frame later on, Graybeard. I have arthritis in my back and neck because of the heavy-duty stuff I did back then. I’m just saying that it is not impossible for women to do this kind of work, but the reactions to their efforts are always the same.
OK, Ex-PH2. We are agreed that in some cases (at least) some women can do the physical labor that an average man can do. (Trying to hedge enough here to not trigger some of our lurkers….)
That agreed upon, what is your take on the reasons – if any – for the distinctions between the outcomes of athletic competitions for men’s and women’s sports?
E.g.: Men’s world record marathon is 2:02:57, women’s world record marathon is 2:17:42; Men’s world record pole vault is 6.16 m, women’s world record pole vault is 5.06 m; Men’s world record bench press is 335 kg, women’s world record bench press is 235.0 kg.
If our combat military are, or ought to be, the lethal equivalents of professional athletes, and if competitive sports is any indication of practical reality (big if, there) then there is a basis for saying that as a group women are not as physically capable as men when strength or speed is a major factor in a battle’s outcome. [Note all the qualifiers!]
If we are to be fair to all members of our armed forces, the capabilities and limitations of both sexes needs to be recognized, and duties matched to capabilities.
Is that a fair statement?
Yes, it is, but tell me how many times you have run a marathon nonstop, fully-armored up, carrying a loaded weapon.
It isn’t about marathons and pole vaults. Deployment marches with a full load including weapons are about endurance under bad conditions, including the foulest weather on the planet.
Arguably, a marathon is an endurance test.
Or take the 100-mile ultra-marathons: men’s record 11:40:55, women’s record 13:45:49. There is another endurance test.
The point being that using records from sporting events, the argument can be made that women physically cannot compete with men in strength, endurance, and speed under heavy load.
I spent 16 years as Advisor to (leading) a co-ed, high-adventure oriented Explorer Post/Venturing Crew. I encouraged our ladies to do their best in all the physical endeavors – and cheered them every step of the way. I fought the “Eewww! Girls!” reaction and downright sexism of some folks – and rejoiced when one of “my girls” would show them up.
Nonetheless – there were times when a brawny young man was what we needed to accomplish something that was beyond the physical abilities of our very capable young ladies.
I have not been in combat, but we were in situations where we had to transport an injured Venturer out of the Quetico Provincial Park backcountry – three days to civilization in Ely, or down a mountain side in Colorado. In those circumstances it was the brawny young men (and one fairly fit old guy) who could best serve.
I’m not experienced in true combat situations – but all my experience tells me that there are limitations to what the female physique can accomplish which are lower than the limitations to what a male physique can accomplish. In a combat situation that can mean the difference between life and death, victory and defeat.
Deployment marches with a full load including weapons are about endurance under bad conditions, including the foulest weather on the planet. If the female physique leads toward most women being weaker and slower than most men – there is a fact we need to acknowledge and accept.
NO one is disputing that. The OPAT is designed to screen out recruits that don’t have the physical capacity to even begin training- they account for a huge percentage of drops and injuries.
Most generally fit men and a few women will do just fine on the OPAT and in training. However, the standard is the standard, and it doesn’t care what gender you are.
Yeah. Besides maybe we’ll have some really buff deviant men who self identify as wymyn and they can handle those loads. Gender is not only fluid but irrelevant in the progtard reality. Be all you can be, even if you are mental.
It’s not lifting it once that’s the issue. It’s lifting it over and over several days or weeks in a row. Women do not have the recovery that men do. Unfortunately for the SJW’s out there this is a biological fact.
You did hit on a good point. In all of the hysteria about women in combat how many girls really want to be in artillery? Tank drivers I can see, though.
‘how many girls really want to be in’ whatever – I think that’s the real point, not whether or not the girls can do the heavy-lifting jobs that combat requires.
It’s not for a lot of men, either.
The new test will screen out men and women that won’t make it in 13B AIT.
Once there, one of the things that every single 13B has to do is an ammo transfer task- placing 155 projectiles n the rack of the ammo track in a specified period of time. No exceptions, it doesn’t even matter if you are going to a 105 unit. All Soldiers have to do every 10 level task for the MOS regardless of size or gender
Hopefully this will clear up after 1/20/17…
Just curious…
Why doesn’t the Army introduce a Battle-March-and-Shoot as part of a “combat arms” PT test? I recall doing this in infantry OSUT at Ft. Benning, and I think it is a much better test of infantry “toughness” and “readiness” than deadlifts or medicine ball throws.
Many a battle have been determined by troops making a hard march with little sleep and then fighting with no break. Waterloo comes to mind, when Blucher’s I? corps marched to Waterloo to complete Wellington’s victory. This was 2 days after the Prussians had been defeated at Ligny, and had the Prussians been unable to make a hard 20 mile march and still fight, Wellington would have been defeated.
Being able to ruck 50 lbs of gear 6 miles and still shoot Expert is far more indicative of a qualified infantryman than a standing long jump.
I realize the increased cost and time required for a test such as this, but it is better training that made the British Army victorious in the Peninsula and at Waterloo. The British soldier fired 50 rounds per year in training, opposed to some European armies that fired less than 10, or sometimes none at all with actual ammunition.
When I was a Army Reserve Engineer in the 1990’s we did an annual “Scoot & Shoot & Scoot & Blast” as part of AT. 10K ruck march in full kit (in under 90 minutes by squad), known distance qual (with grass drills before each distance), 5K ruck march in full kit with demo (no denotators, don’t remember the time hack) to teh demo range, where (by squad) you had to rig and detonate a door charge, improvised banglador torpedo, and a cratering charge.
If your squad did everything to the standard you recieved a 290 on your APFT.
Totally against regulations, really expensive, and today’s SM’s would shit themselves at the risk (rucking with live ammo? Rucking with C4, DET cord, and a 40# charge?).
After budget cuts, I want to say 95/96, we dropped the demo and replaced it with build a wire obstacle, build an individual fighting position (e-tool only), and build a bunker (shovel, pick ax, and provided materials). Clinton took the fun out of everything.
I find it funny: The Army trusts us to handle c4 and live ammo under fire (and consequently, more pressure/stress), but not in training.
I find it funny in the sense, if I don’t laugh, I’ll cry…
I liked the weapons immersion training that the Army was doing in 2007 (when i came back in). We had to carry our weapons at BCT and throughout AIT, with mags and blanks. Much better than the check in, check out thing we did each day in the 90’s.
And then I went to pre-mob training where we “borrowed” weapons for ranges, lanes, and quals. Went to Iraq we fell in on thousnds of rounds, gernades, flashbags, At4’s etc with a “here you go”.
Come home, and we draw our weapons maybe four times a year (once to shoot, and the rest of the time for STX/Lanes).
Its a sad funny Army we are in.
I remember pulling guard duty when we were issued three rounds of live ammunition. Our instructions were to use the three rounds to signal an emergency. They never did tell us what to do after we had used our three rounds; run away, I suppose.
I always found it amusing to be guarding an ammo dump with three rounds of ammunition.
Could you signal the emergency by putting the three rounds into the threat(s)?
After that you’d have to Barney Fife it, I guess.
Same deal for us in Germany in the mid 70’s.
But we also had guard geese as a backup in the ammo dump.
All that Mickey Mouse safety crap went out the window in Vietnam. No safety strap sitting in the door of a helo. I carried about six pounds of C-4 in my ruck and abox of blasting caps in one of its pockets. Everyone had weapons, ammo and grenades all the time. The only time I wasn’t armed was when the 4th ID deactivated and we turned in all our weapons and ammo.
“Clinton took the fun out of everything.”
That’s what Monica said.
In 2007 my Company did a 25 mile ruck march (by Platoon) with full combat load of ammunition at which at the end we did a static live fire so not all CSMs would shit themselves.
That would make sense.
Perhaps under new management, things that make sense will be considered.
Perhaps something like the “Crucible” in the Marine Corps.
The Army still has all the same standards in training. This test is at the recruiting station, and it’s what allows you to even go to training. Think of it like the ASVAB. Passing the OPAT does not mean that you will pass OSUT, but failing it means that you almost definitely would not make it through, either because you aren’t physically ready or due to injury (because you aren’t physically ready).
You sill have to do all the road marching, shooting, etc.Tankers gotta tank, gunners gotta gun…
This test is not the graduation requirement or the MOS standard This determine if you can even enlist for a given MOS. If you don’t pass, you don’t go to OSUT.
Once at OSUT, you will still have to pass all of the existing tasks to standard. Once in a unit, Soldiers will still have to perform to standard on both individual and collective tasks.
They are looking at exactly that right now for units. The only question is whether or not to make it MOS specific (all 11Bs, regardless of unit) or unit type (all Soldiers in an infantry battalion, regardless of MOS).
Also, all Soldiers have to perform to standard in collective training. Theoretically, even though the movement to contact live fire is not an individually graded event, the NCOs should counsel Soldiers that can’t keep up or perform while fatigued. This could be grounds for separation or a medical board if the Soldier doesn’t perform conststently with enough time to fix it.
The problem? CSMs, who think the APFT is the one and only measurement of fitness. Try to give an NCO a ‘needs improvement’ under physical fitness because they can’t hang on road marches but scored a 290 on their APFT. CSM will send you back to the drawing board because ‘the standard’ is the APFT.
Just out of curiosity, reddevil, how far do they take the fatigue level? I’m only asking because fatigue levels under training conditions are not the same as active battle conditions, where adrenaline will make you do things that you perhaps could not do in training.
We train as we fight, meaning that we try to make training conditions as realistic and close to combat as possible,
Of course, combat is combat, and there is no substitute. Just like in sports, the harder the training the more prepared you are for the real thing. More sweat in training is less blood in combat
This sounds like we are turning the MEPS center into a reality T.V show. Years from now old women in bar will be saying “I was almost Infantry except for that #ucking medicine ball”.
It would be better if it was dwarf tossing…
Or street dwarf bowling is a good Plan B if the bar is full.
Yes, I don’t like that, either. It is counterproductive to do the show-and-tell each time one single female makes it into or through one of these programs.
That is more disruptive than saying ‘the class of ### includes the following members:’.
Making a point of the female member over the rest of the class does NOT work for me. She’s just another soldier, in this case, and interviewing her instead of the rest of the class is the wrong thing to do.
This is a test you will take in the recruiting station, not the test you will take to graduate from OSUT or recertify in your MOS.
Think of it like a physical ASVAB- you have to pass before you go to BCT or OSUT. This will keep all the Call of Duty players from joining the infantry.
To graduate, Soldiers will still have to meet standards, and we’ve actually made it mandatory to pass the high physical demand tasks for the MOS in order to graduate. Oh, by the way, no more ‘simulating’ tasks- if you are supposed to do it in full body armor with weapon, that is the graduation requirement.
The shuttle run looks easy, but it is actually one of the best measures of VO2 max (in other words, your max aerobic capacity) outside of the actual test in a lab. Aerobic capacity is directly tied to your ability to do just about everything else. You can be strong and powerful, but if you don’t have the aerobic capacity you will break down very quickly in tasks like road marching.
The Army is working on a test sort of like the Marine Combat Fitness Test (google it), There are a few options out there, all of them pretty good. I would expect to see it rolled out pretty soon.
In the meantime, the OPAT is the entry test, the actual task standard (and the APFT) is the graduation standard, and not getting smoked by your NCO is the survival standard in units.
A buddy of mine was a fire dept. captain. His daughter was an amazon and he had a ton of respect for women. He took on a female firefighter as part of some program, and when it was over I said, so she was strong? Would you hire her? He said, no. I was so surprised, as this guy was the most female-validating man I ever met. He said, “Look. There might be one per some huge number of women who could do this. The world’s got some women who are built like men and vice-versa. But they’re very rare. And you see what happened to the police[1] when they let women in. I need someone to be able to put a big guy over their shoulder and climb a ladder and women just can’t do it, even if they can do everything else. And then there’s a whole ‘cultural’ issue of blending the genders and everyone has to be paranoid that she’s going to end up claiming people were biased or someone’s crude joke was harrassment or whatever. It’s just not worth the hassle and this is life and death we’re talking about.” [1] The LAPD requirements for police officers led to about 7 per 10 men getting in and 3 of 10 women. This seemed reasonable to many, and you’d think the 3 that got in would have proved themselves. But they were sued for discrimination, as this politic is not about equality of opportunity but equality of outcome, and they had to lower their standards so on average more women would get in. Of course that lowered the standards for the men, too. Later, some PD — can’t remember which — was sued for race with the same kind of logic, leading to yet again a lowering of standards. Then people complain about the police. The reality is, the moment women are ‘in’ anywhere there will be legal and politicized pressure to arrange ‘equality of outcome’ to be ‘fair.’ And people will die for it. This shit has no place in the military. I’m a woman but… Read more »
The program your buddy was a part of is actually US and State employment law. If someone can do the job, you have to let them compete. If it is a competition (we have 5 slots, and the most important factor is physical ability), then that should hold up under the law.
On the other hand, if carrying a fellow firefighter up a ladder is an actual job requirement, then you really have to test everyone on their ability to do it. If he did that in training and held everyone to it there would be no issue if no women were able to do it.
I read a lot of military guys say something along the lines of ‘you need to be able to throw your buddy over your shoulder and carry them out of the kill zone. I would love to see the regular Soldier or Marine that can do that consistently. The average infantryman is 180 pounds or so, and will be wearing 60-80 pounds of gear (armor, helmet, ammo, etc). We are now well over 200 pounds, approaching 250. Oh, by the way, the rescuer is also wearing 60-80 pounds of kit.
This is why the actual task calls for DRAGGING the casualty to immediate safety.
Thanks reddevil
In fairness, I can and have offered my professional opinion that women most certainly can be good firefighters. I’ve worked over, under, and with quite a few. Firefighting is a physical job, but it’s quite different (and physically easier) from Combat Arms jobs. This is true whether you operate in the municipal, wildland, or all-risk disciplines. I have successfully taught a five-foot-nothing, 95 pounds-soaking-wet Chinese chick to drag and move my 6’1″ 230-lb Black Irish white ass in full structure gear and BA (50 extra pounds) and move me over, under, and through obstacles. She can pull 2-1/2″ hose, run hydraulic extrication tools, carry hose packs up a mountain, cut a roof with an axe or chainsaw (the axe always starts and never runs out of gas, but GODDAMN does it ever make you appreciate the chainsaw!) and throw ladders that weigh as much as she does. Hell, she could do the fucking Denver Drill successfully using me as the victim, and that shit is a LOT harder than it looks. And I’ve found a lot of situations, generally in extricating patients from wadded-up vehicles, but elsewhere as well, in which her tiny size is a huge advantage, because she can move around and work in spaces where I wouldn’t even have room to breathe. Our job is extremely dynamic that way, and one size does not fit all. Yes, she is not as strong as your average dude. That’s why I don’t teach girls the same way as males. Guys have a much wider margin of error to muscle their way through something like throwing a ladder than girls do, therefore girls must focus more on leverage and perfect technique. About two years ago, I had a new female firefighter of small stature show up to work and say that she intended to prove that she wasn’t too small to be a firefighter. I told her “Yes, you are too small. That’s why you’re either going to learn *perfectly*, or you’re gone, because you’re gonna hurt yourself if you do it wrong.” She learned to perform each skill perfectly.… Read more »
Thanks, The Other Whitey
“The Army is working on a test sort of like the Marine Combat Fitness Test (google it), There are a few options out there, all of them pretty good. I would expect to see it rolled out pretty soon.”
Why work on anything, just adopt The Marines Test for Army Combat Arms like they did for Camo…oh..
the Marine test has a lot of good points, but even they will tell you it could be better.
What ridiculous trials of strength. What they really need to do is forced marches, runs in boots & uts(what drops 99% of WM’s in the corps), and fireman carries.
Medicine ball? hahahah
This Army test is similar to the Initial Strength Test, which Marines have to take prior to shipping to Boot Camp. The IST is a mini PFT, 2 pull ups, 44 crunches in two minutes, and a 1.5 mile run in 13:30. The Marines are still using a gender normed requirement, so females have lower standards. Ground Combat Arms have higher scores, but they weren’t listed on the website.
The CFT is a pretty good test, but it takes so long to administer that the Marines don’t use it for recruiting- you don’t have to pass until Boot Camp. However, even the CFT has some issues- you mention the fireman’s carry, but you are partnered with someone that is within 10 pounds and 6 inches of your size for the event. How is that gender neutral and reflective of an absolute standard? Small Marines (and therefore most of the Was have an easier test than the big guys…
By the way, the Army does do forces march and move under fire exercise in training, just like the Marines. Evert 11B has to do all of the 10 level infantry tasks to standard to graduate from OSUT
What next? Women’s MREs with maxipads?
Hey, I (a guy) carry maxipads in my first aid kit. They are great for heavy-bleeding wounds.
Got a 15-stitch scar on my calf from a ski edge cut, thanks to my adeventures as a yute. What did the ski patrol use on the cut? Big, thick, heavy-duty feminine napkins. Absorbent enough to drain a pool.
I like the way this is boiled down to standards and choice. It’s all so clean and tidy, so equitable and free of gender bias. It’s all so terrific. And it’s all such bullshit. Women ought not to be in any combat unit anywhere, period. That’s all. They don’t fit. Despite the bull dyke exceptions, as a rule women remain the gentler gender and men, especially American men, are taught never to hit a girl and to protect women from harm and danger.
Oh, come on, Air Cav. Women can be and are just as nasty as men, and are sometimes a lot more vicious. I think the idea of mixing men and women together in combat to be ludicrous. On the other hand, the women who are in physically demanding jobs such as sapper/combat engineering are being ignored by the media because they’ve already met and filled the requirements.
Maybe this all demands closer scrutiny.
I could see Hillary Clinton firing a .50 Cal rifle at ISIS since they supported Trump. Then ripping the heart out and eating it.
That is what I was taught as well, but nowadays to our feral male city rats, they are just bitches and ho’s.
PH2, you should realize if this social engineering goes forward, there is no way there will be all-female infantry battalions. The SJW feminists would scream “discrimination and segregation,” claiming it was just like the days of the all-black units. So the mixing will happen and so will the pregnancies and the love triangle conflicts. Some women will decide that infantry isn’t all fun and games and deliberately get pregnant to avoid deployment to a war zone, which has already occurred in non-combat arms units during the past 15 years.
Something to bolster Ex-PH2’s argument:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3507167/posts
Female IDF Captain leads her troops to fight of 23 terrorists – despite being wounded. She ” managed to get on the radio and call for backup, administer first aid to her driver and return several magazines worth of gunfire back at her attackers.”