Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit

[Eye In The Sky]

You think the PT test is too easy? Good for you; keep up with your fitness.

You think the PT test is too hard? Get your sh!t together or GTFO.

Best summary of the PT test/U.O.S. fitness evaluation in any thread yet.  :goodpost:

 

[ballz]

So I guess in your eyes I can't be a leader????

None of that tells me anything really as it's really all relative to your peers, or in the case of being in a leadership position, to your subordinates as well. I don't know you, you may have enough left to be a great leader on an Olympic volleyball team for all I know, or maybe Master's volleyball team, or maybe only a recreational volleyball team. I do know the senior leadership we've had over the last 4 years at my Battalion, and I have a pretty good idea of which ones were effective and which ones weren't, and I know which ones set a positive example for the troops and which ones lacked credibility for a myriad of reasons (some not related to physical fitness at all).

But each of those teams (olympic, master's, recreational, etc) is going to require a different threshold of physical fitness / skill and without it, a Team Captain for any of those teams would be much less effective if his physical ability and skill has deteriorated to a certain point that he is facing a credibility issue. And the executive all the way down to the coach would also face a credibility issue from the team (the rank and file troops, so to speak) for continuing to have a Team Captain that is now ineffective, or has a bunch of people below him that would be much more effective at being the Team Captain.

This comes down to an issue with both how we promote people and also how we employ them.

For military-results based testing, you can't discriminate, but for health and fitness related testing, you have to. We're trying to do both at the same time and as a result, no one is happy.

Agreed.

The two things are unrelated.

Agreed, but now they've made them related, hence some heated discussion :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. Much of why we do as PT to get fit is relatively ineffective, or done so poorly as to unmotivated most people. I have been around long enough that I remember when PT was always a morning run, and have seen the evolution of fitness tests, the gold,silver, bronze pins and virtually everything else.

PT should be multifunctional (I have posted in the past that the training regime for modern Pentathelon might be a good starting point, since it trains for a wide variety of conditions). We have plenty of time (and given further cuts to ammunition, training etc. we will have still more until 2019), so that does not have to be an issue, Troops generally like a challenge, so instituting more challenges like Ironman, Tough Mudder, the Spartan run etc. can be part pf the yearly plan.

If there are time pressures, there are series of exercises in a book called The Four Hour Body{/color] which claim a very high level of efficiency (i.e. 4 hr/week) to make dramatic changes in strength and endurance. I doubt that anyone can say they don't have the time to do 75 kettle bell swings twice a week and myotatic crunches (starting at .page 162 in the hardcover edition).

The main point is if *we* are serious about fitness, then we need to train for fitness in a serious manner.

And I also stand by the idea that there should be no exemptions in the PT test. That C-6 don't magically stop weighing 11Kg just because you are (insert age/gender/element here), so everyone needs to be able to pack the support weapons, platoon ammunition, platoon stores etc. and not just pass on the tough jobs to the few who are capable of doing them.

 

[armyvern]

But each of those teams (olympic, master's, recreational, etc) is going to require a different threshold of physical fitness / skill and without it, a Team Captain for any of those teams would be much less effective if his physical ability and skill has deteriorated to a certain point that he is facing a credibility issue. And the executive all the way down to the coach would also face a credibility issue from the team (the rank and file troops, so to speak) for continuing to have a Team Captain that is now ineffective, or has a bunch of people below him that would be much more effective at being the Team Captain.

This comes down to an issue with both how we promote people and also how we employ them.

Right - I'll actually agree with this reasoning.  The issue with it though is that it is not applicable.  That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.

A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that shit comes with breadth of experience and time in.

I once had a QM who insisted he needed to actually work at every position in clothing stores "to know what the troops do if he were to lead them properly".  THAT Sir, is NOT your job.  Those troops (or RSMs later on) have more job knowledge between 5 of them than you will ever possess in your career.  You do not have enough time left to serve on your contract to ever learn what they and their 100 years of service combined know.  Lead us - you do not need to be us. 

It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.  I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Right - I'll actually agree with this reasoning.  The issue with it though is that it is not applicable.  That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.

A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that crap comes with breadth of experience and time in.

I once had a QM who insisted he needed to actually work at every position in clothing stores "to know what the troops do if he were to lead them properly".  THAT Sir, is NOT your job.  Those troops (or RSMs later on) have more job knowledge between 5 of them than you will ever possess in your career.  You do not have enough time left to serve on your contract to ever learn what they and their 100 years of service combined know.  Lead us - you do not need to be us. 

It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.  I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept.

And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.

Right?

 

[ModlrMike]

And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.

Right?

One hopes.

 

[armyvern]

And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.

Right?

Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.

 

[ballz]

That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.

And at Infantry Battalion, the Bn needs to perform at Infanteering. If you can't, you need to get moved into other roles.

A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that crap comes with breadth of experience and time in.

Our RSMs, regardless of age, are there to worry about discipline, duties, drills, dress, and deportment. This is a leadership position above all else. Their expertise is in soldiering skills. For most soldiering skills, whether they are done in a crap state or an excellent state, it comes down to discipline, and discipline starts to degrade when you're cold, tired, dragged out, physically exhausted, etc. All things that being physically fit helps you endure and remain disciplined.

Imagine being the cold, wet, tired, and pissed off MCpl who just gets hauled aside for a personal conversation with the Pl 2IC because your section's defensive position is a mess. The cam and concealment hasn't been changed in 4 days, the range cards are done incorrectly, the fields of fire are cleared in a half-assed manner, and your troops are spending more time sleeping than improving the position. In that moment, how much do you care that the Pl 2IC has been digging trenches since you were in high school? The truth is, you don't give a rats ass. All you care about is whether your Pl 2IC can back up his words right now.

If he is the Pl 2IC who continuously dodges out of PT, and when he doesn't he falls out before the Pl is out of the parking lot, but yet can always be found between the unit canteen and the smoke pit, he is not going to have the credibility to correct your work and keep you honest / disciplined.

If he is the Pl 2IC who is always present at PT, who despite his years of experience seems to still give a fuck on a daily basis and manages to stay with the Pl for the entirety of that run despite that stupid Officer's marathon legs, and you genuinely respect him and find him a credible person, he is going to have the credibility in your mind to correct your work and send you off to do a better job, and you're going to be happy to work harder for him.

This is no different for an RSM inspecting CSM's coy position for effective soldiering skills, or a CSM inspecting a Pl 2ICs for the same thing.  Or if the RSM is walking around with the CO and inspecting a particular Platoon that day and is speaking directly to the MCpl who's section he determines has a sub-par position due to their lack of discipline.

It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.  I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept.

No one is slagging him or saying that it's not "good on him." But he is being employed in the wrong position / role (in the context we are speaking of now, RSM of an Infantry Battalion) if his physical ability has degraded to the point that he's nearly in a wheelchair.

This is not a matter of me not having enough time to understand how it works. Your last comment sounds very much like "I have lots of experience, thus, you just don't understand yet," one of the more dangerous attitudes in our institution. I am catching exactly what you are pitching, I simply disagree with it, so you can hold back the comments that suggest I am just too inexperienced to understand. Your point is not very complex or hard to grasp.

And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.

Right?

Apparently not, we just haven't had enough time to grasp it yet. :

 

[ballz]

Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.

Must just be an Infantry thing, but when our troops are told "the bare minimum is not good enough" by their CSMs and RSMs and basically every leadership position that exists, and hear them talk about how the fitness test is easy and they should all be embarrassed if they can't achieve it, they expect that he also does more than just the bare minimum. Crazy thought process they have, right?

The issue is actually that the current "incentive" program now encourages more of the shitty RSMs that we are speaking of, and less of the better ones that we all long for.

 

[armyvern]

And at Infantry Battalion, the Bn needs to perform at Infanteering. If you can't, you need to get moved into other roles.

Our RSMs, regardless of age, are there to worry about discipline, duties, drills, dress, and deportment. This is a leadership position above all else. Their expertise is in soldiering skills. For most soldiering skills, whether they are done in a crap state or an excellent state, it comes down to discipline, and discipline starts to degrade when you're cold, tired, dragged out, physically exhausted, etc. All things that being physically fit helps you endure and remain disciplined.

Imagine being the cold, wet, tired, and pissed off MCpl who just gets hauled aside for a personal conversation with the Pl 2IC because your section's defensive position is a mess. The cam and concealment hasn't been changed in 4 days, the range cards are done incorrectly, the fields of fire are cleared in a half-assed manner, and your troops are spending more time sleeping than improving the position. In that moment, how much do you care that the Pl 2IC has been digging trenches since you were in high school? The truth is, you don't give a rats ass. All you care about is whether your Pl 2IC can back up his words right now.

If he is the Pl 2IC who continuously dodges out of PT, and when he doesn't he falls out before the Pl is out of the parking lot, but yet can always be found between the unit canteen and the smoke pit, he is not going to have the credibility to correct your work and keep you honest / disciplined.

If he is the Pl 2IC who is always present at PT, who despite his years of experience seems to still give a fuck on a daily basis and manages to stay with the Pl for the entirety of that run despite that stupid Officer's marathon legs, and you genuinely respect him and find him a credible person, he is going to have the credibility in your mind to correct your work and send you off to do a better job, and you're going to be happy to work harder for him.

This is no different for an RSM inspecting CSM's coy position for effective soldiering skills, or a CSM inspecting a Pl 2ICs for the same thing.  Or if the RSM is walking around with the CO and inspecting a particular Platoon that day and is speaking directly to the MCpl who's section he determines has a sub-par position due to their lack of discipline.

No one is slagging him or saying that it's not "good on him." But he is being employed in the wrong position / role (in the context we are speaking of now, RSM of an Infantry Battalion) if his physical ability has degraded to the point that he's nearly in a wheelchair.

This is not a matter of me not having enough time to understand how it works. Your last comment sounds very much like "I have lots of experience, thus, you just don't understand yet," one of the more dangerous attitudes in our institution. I am catching exactly what you are pitching, I simply disagree with it, so you can hold back the comments that suggest I am just too inexperienced to understand. Your point is not very complex or hard to grasp.

Apparently not, we just haven't had enough time to grasp it yet. :

No, as you move up in rank, your job becomes less technical and more strategic.

Down in the trenches, it is your Pl WO and Pl Comds job to lead you.  It is your Comd Team's (CO and RSM) to lead them amongst their many other duties and responsibilities.

I am well aware of what constitutes an RSM's duties; I am one - which do not include being the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment (with the CO always being first of course).  What I am getting from all of your posts is that only the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment is able/eligible to fill an RSM position ... all other skills required be damned. 

Did he pass his fitness test? 

You can take it for what it's worth, rounded down to zero because we don't do pennies anymore, but I agree that we need to be fit and we need to consider fitness as basic requirements for soldiering, but the young 21 yo who is the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment today will not be so by the time he is the RSM and, I'd suspect, neither will any of the others.  There will always be younger and fitter troops capable of running faster than the RSM, CSMs, WOs, Sgts etc etc etc ...Such is the way of life.

 

[QV]

Fitness is much more than who has the best cardio. 

 

[armyvern]

Must just be an Infantry thing, but when our troops are told "the bare minimum is not good enough" by their CSMs and RSMs and basically every leadership position that exists, and hear them talk about how the fitness test is easy and they should all be embarrassed if they can't achieve it, they expect that he also does more than just the bare minimum. Crazy thought process they have, right?

The issue is actually that the current "incentive" program now encourages more of the shitty RSMs that we are speaking of, and less of the better ones that we all long for.

It's certainly not an infantry thing.  The CAF simply "has" a minimum standard that all pers are required to achieve.  Everybody should strive to improve upon that and get better.  But, as you age, physics is against you as has already been explained by another in this thread.

 

[armyvern]

Fitness is much more than who has the best cardio.

I agree; I'd also state that the ability to run far and fast is not the only valid indicator of cardiovascular fitness.

I've never been a runner - I am a plodder. But I grew up a competitive swimmer and keep up swimming ... one of my Captains once told me during an O Gp that I needed to improve my cardio because I couldn't keep up with him on runs (because I was a competitive swimmer, the cartilage in my knees is screwed, but I can still hump my ruck with the lot of them [no impact on knees!]).  I challenged him to laps in the pool.  Our next PT session was in the pool ... guess what happened. He didn't bring up my lack of cardio any more and my fellow troops had a great snicker.

 

[ballz]

What I am getting from all of your posts is that only the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment is able/eligible to fill an RSM position ... all other skills required be damned.

Then you are not catching what I am pitching at all.

As long as they are competent, the RSM, CSM, and even Pl 2IC could probably get away with being the 80th-85th percentile on any given activity, since on any given activity, only about 15% of pers fall out. That's it, that's all they need to do to maintain their credibility. If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out, no one will actually care. This is a matter of maintaining credibility, not winning a fitness competition.

But when the CO and RSM decide to join my platoon for a run, and I have the Pl 2IC running up to ask me to slow down because the RSM is falling out and we haven't made it 1km yet, and no one else has fallen out.... then there is a serious inability to lead from the front due to credibility issues. And there is not a single troop that doesn't notice.

So all of these posts are not about promoting people to CWO based on their fitness, they are about not promoting someone to WO or MWO or CWO (or Maj, or LCol, or Col, for that matter) if they are at the 99th percentile of fitness and won't have the credibility required amongst the troops we expect them to lead.

No, as you move up in rank, your job becomes less technical and more strategic.

Down in the trenches, it is your Pl WO and Pl Comds job to lead you.  It is your Comd Team's (CO and RSM) to lead them amongst their many other duties and responsibilities.

Seriously? When were you a Pl 2IC, CSM, or RSM in an Inf Bn? I don't want to get out the yard-sticks and start measuring egos here, but I really don't need to be told the duties of the RSMs, DSMs, Ops SMs, CSMs, Pl 2ICs, etc, in an Infantry Battalion. My jobs (in an Inf Bn) up to this point have gotten me to know them quite well, and I've seen them done well and I've seen them done poorly. The Battalion, not even the CO, is focussed with strategic levels (although the CO must have the strategic goals in the back of his brain). The Battalion is focussed at the operational level down to the tactical level. It's *mostly* the tactical level.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.

Agreed. He's passed the official tests, well done, carry on!

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Seriously? When were you a Pl 2IC, CSM, or RSM in an Inf Bn? I don't want to get out the yard-sticks and start measuring egos here, but I really don't need to be told the duties of the RSMs, DSMs, Ops SMs, CSMs, Pl 2ICs, etc, in an Infantry Battalion. My jobs (in an Inf Bn) up to this point have gotten me to know them quite well, and I've seen them done well and I've seen them done poorly. The Battalion, not even the CO, is focussed with strategic levels (although the CO must have the strategic goals in the back of his brain). The Battalion is focussed at the operational level down to the tactical level. It's *mostly* the tactical level.

Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).

If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out, no one will actually care. This is a matter of maintaining credibility, not winning a fitness competition.

Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated.

Third- You are arguing about fitness across the board, so Vern is simply trying to state that falling out of a run is, largely, irrelevant for many trades. Since you are clearly so offended that she would dare to say what an infantry Sr NCO does than you should stop broadly saying what you think any other trade should do.

 

[ballz]

Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).

Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated.

On point. The CO does concern himself with the operational level, however, but the point that it is tactical vice strategic is essentially what I was pointing out anyway.

Third- You are arguing about fitness across the board, so Vern is simply trying to state that falling out of a run is, largely, irrelevant for many trades. Since you are clearly so offended that she would dare to say what an infantry Sr NCO does than you should stop broadly saying what you think any other trade should do.

This is not as on point. I am arguing about the level of fitness required for someone in a leadership position. Leadership is not trade-specific, but the level of physical fitness required for each trade is. I have stated numerous times that it is all relevant to who you are leading. If you're in a trade where physical fitness has absolutely zero value (which I would argue there are none), then I guess you can get away with having leadership that also has zero levels. If you are in a trade that values a high level of physical fitness because it affects the effectiveness of your unit, then you should obviously demand your leadership is of a high enough level of physical fitness to remain credible.

It's all relative. If we expect high levels of fitness from our subordinates, our leadership should reflect that. Aka SNCOs, WOs, and Officers should be leading from the front on that expectation. If your in a unit where physical fitness doesn't have as high an impact on your performance, and the expectation is that you have a maintain a "moderate" level of fitness, then your leadership should be at least "moderately" fit. A leader that is drastically less fit than his subordinates should be an outlier.

In neither situation should your leadership be so unfit that they lose their credibility

All this coming back to the original point, that tying merit points to fitness relative to one's age group is a step backwards and in the wrong direction. And we can beat this further to death, I am not likely to change my mind on that matter. :deadhorse:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

On point. The CO does concern himself with the operational level, however, but the point that it is tactical vice strategic is essentially what I was pointing out anyway.

This is not as on point. I am arguing about the level of fitness required for someone in a leadership position. Leadership is not trade-specific, but the level of physical fitness required for each trade is. I have stated numerous times that it is all relevant to who you are leading. If you're in a trade where physical fitness has absolutely zero value (which I would argue there are none), then I guess you can get away with having leadership that also has zero levels. If you are in a trade that values a high level of physical fitness because it affects the effectiveness of your unit, then you should obviously demand your leadership is of a high enough level of physical fitness to remain credible.

All this coming back to the original point, that tying merit points to fitness relative to one's age group is a step backwards and in the wrong direction. And we can beat this further to death, I am not likely to change my mind on that matter. :deadhorse:

Fair enough.

If your Bn CO is concerning himself with the operational level than I would suggest he doesn't understand what the operational level of war is, but that is for another thread I suppose.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated.

I am just going to pour a bit of gas on that fire here, just for fun.  [

Bird_Gunner45: In the sentence "If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out ...", "retarded" is an adjective, which qualifies the noun "run", not an adverb. If one wishes to say someone else "appear uneducated", one should get it right oneself.  [

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I am just going to pour a bit of gas on that fire here, just for fun.  [

Bird_Gunner45: In the sentence "If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out ...", "retarded" is an adjective, which qualifies the noun "run", not an adverb. If one wishes to say someone else "appear uneducated", one should get it right oneself.  [

That's fair. I stand by the initial comment though, minus the grammar mistake.