if memory serves me, the inverted crawl replaced the low crawl and the horizontal ladder replaced the grenade throw...not that i'm of the age to remember (but my dad was)....thankfully, all that stuff went the way of the duck walk...

i don't miss the days of being gigged for not having spit-shined boots and wearing day-old fatigues for PT...ah, yes, the 82nd years....:mad:

Pat:

Roger. In some places but not others. I think the last I saw of running with boots on was in Airborne school in 1977. No TOE unit I was in had guys run with boots. The circumstances that resulted in wearing of running shoes was due to the marathon craze. Next thing you know, units are running way too far each day and running shoes or not, guys started getting hurt.

Heavy ruck marches -- speed marches -- etc were another one that hurt guys pretty badly.

Gene

Too true!

My basic was 40 years ago, M-1 Garand, BAR, .30 cal aircooled MG, etc, etc.

Fatigues, combat boots, and LBE for the runs.

Terry

Boots were still used for the runs as late as 1980 at Benning.

TR

I see the exact opposite in the kids from the local high school -- on average they are much more fit than we were at that age. My daughter lifts 3 times a week and runs 4 miles on another 3 days. My son lifts 4 days and runs 3 days (he's in college now). They both have a pretty broad range of friends and the only kid who's got any kind of blubber is an offensive lineman who could probably break me in half.

Almost everone does a sport - even the stoners play lacrosse.

If anything, they are hypercompetitive. I look at these kids and I see real hope for the future. :lifter Now some of their parents, thats another story...

TR:

Roger. I went to Airborne School in 1977. We wore spit polished boots and starched fatigue uniform. It was stupid but we did it. That, plus Ranger School, was the last time I was forced to do PT in boots.

I believe it was around 1980 when the Army changed it's PT test to sneakers and fatigue trousers as opposed to boots and fatigue trousers. Maybe 81. I think when I took the Airborne Ranger PT Test for SF in 1980 that we did this test in boots but can't remember.

Between us, although boots were heavier than sneakers, I never really cared. My injuries came from distance running forced on us by marathoners who were commanders (conventional side), plus a really stupid emphasis on moving real fast with heavy rucksacks down concrete roads (SF side). When was the last time a SF Team had to speed march twenty miles down a concrete road with full gear in a real combat situation? Never. That's why God invented helicopters and the internal combustion engine.

I believe soldiers must be in very good physical condition. However, I don't believe they must emulate a tri-athlete, marathon runner, or power lifter to be a solid soldier capable of being physically able to handle any combat condition he may 'realistically' encounter. If I had my way, a Joe would be a combination of a Biathlete and 'Worlds Stongest Man' -- watered down quite a bit from the international competitors of course.

The question today, like our day, is this. What is the right combination of 'Biathlete' and 'Worlds Strongest Man' given the constaints of time for PT , resources available for PT, and desire by the soldier? Answer that in terms of all the variables of the same by TOE units and one will never have to work again for a dollar.

Gene

Beg to differ Gene. Good PT requires no resources. As for time, well, any soldier that doesn't have time for PT needs to re-evaluate his time management. I would offer that they cannot afford not to do PT.

Terry:

Where is the water cooled Browning? He, he, he.

There was a major shift in belief by the Army in terms of PT during the marathon craze in the mid to late 70's. Jim Fixx is the culprit or hero depnding on one's view.

The best way to explain it is this. Mass formation PT in boots, fatigue uniforms etc -- 'Daily Dozen' plus a two mile "run" in mass formation was never intended to get guys into any type of physical condition. It was intended to be more of a espirit thing than an exercise thing. Mass formation of soldiers, dress right, tallest to shortest, starched fatigues, spit polished boots -- all calling cadence etc. No one fell out because the pace was so slow it didn't tax anyone.

Then the Army figured out that they needed guys in good shape as opposed to espririt. Confusing from there. Although Jim Fixx influenced commanders to actually try and get guys into good shape, commanders couldn't grasp the fact that getting into good shape required a different approach to PT! So we had mass formation runs with sneakers at a faster pace for longer distances instead of coaching guys to become PT oriented as a life style.

Well, it took the Army from around 1980 to -- well they still don't get it real well even today. At least they are doing better at trying to get guys into decent condtion today than our era's. I still see incredibly stupid things being done daily in terms of PT, but not as stupid as my era.

I take things as they come but am real happy to be retired from the Army.

Gene

Is routinely rucking with a 15kg plate over prepared cinder/chip trails a smart thing to do if you are 2 years away from a PT test? Is it an invitation to injury or good conditioning? He (20 year-old) tells me a former AD acquaintance he runs with has shown him how to carry the weight high, use a padded hip belt properly, etc. and I know he has decent shoes. I myself have bad knees and I just worry that this is a formula for problems. Sorry for the hijack.

Gene:

Saw them, never used one!:)

Terry

Doc:

Never implied they shouldn't do PT. Only said that how the Army focuses them is mostly wrong.

It takes resources. The resources are time and equipment to become something that a Chain of Command has envisioned. It can be done given a clear vision of an end-state in terms of overall physical fitness.

I work with Stryker Brigades. 'Unconventional', Conventional Units. They have a serious PT program but it isn't always done smartly. Time is wasted smoking guys on exercises that have absolutely no meaning in terms of their doctrine or combat orientation.

I believe in developing a soldier physically to execute his mission. Some need more cardio training and some need more anerobic strength training. Stryker soldiers need to be more of the 'Worlds Strongest Man' than 'Jim Fixx', but they can't totally deny either. The Stryker can carry them to and from a contact and yes, 99 percent of the Strykers do survive some absolutely horrible circumstances.

We can differ in opinions -- no sweat from me. Please offer your best views. It can make a bigger difference than you can imagine.

Gene

That is truly the key to a good PT program if it is designed to accomplish the goals to standards that are required to perform the job. Unfortunately the goals and standards of many in the Chain of Command are more like the goals of educators and that is to train to the standard of "the test" be it the APFT or the SAT. Neither of which measure the true ability of a person to perform all the actual tasks in school or combat. They are mere indicators of levels of ability. Good commanders are smart enough to define the requirements and allow the teams to design their own programs to achieve the results required, they do not worry about who has the unit with the highest test score. Now I am not saying that we need to throw out the PT test because it still provides a guage to validate that folks are doing something and troops (and I mean all regardless of rank or grade) will still do best that which the boss checks, but training to pass the APFT is not a program that will meet the needs of all troops and it has to be a totally integrated effort into the entire training effort. To me it has always been the minimum standard from which to start to build a program to meet unit requirements. Strength, agility, endurance are all important and lowering requirements to fit age is stupid if the person is still required to perform the same tasks in the same MOS. That is not a PT program, it is professional charity, personal suicide, and a team handicap. PT, like professional development, is not the sole charge of the chain of command it is the chain's responsibility to ensure that it is done but it is the individuals responsibility to execute and maintain. If that means starting your day at O dark thirty and ending it fifteen minutes before BMNT then so be it. Just my opinion and personal philosophy.

Sir:

Since we have taken this track, if a male rigger has to be able to perform at a certain level as validated by a PT test, why do female riggers have a different scale?

It would seem to me that if a soldier is required to demonstrate upper body strength by performing a certain number of push-ups, why would we allow a select group of soldiers to perform at a level so low that their max is below the minimum for the other soldiers? If a male has to run two miles in 15:00 to pass, why should a female be allowed 22:00 to cover the same distance? Will the enemy pursue them more slowly?

Are we a warfighting institution, or a social experiment?

TR

You'll get no argument from me. They should not have the same MOS. If we are going to use the MOS to define tasks, conditions and standards with PT being a standard then give them a different MOS or change the standard for all. I absolutely disagree with different standards for the same job and that also goes for senior officers and NCOs who hold a MOS and can no longer meet the physical requirements of the job. I think SF started out on the right foot by having a higher standard for the APFT but I think we screwed the pooch when we started changing the standards of performance based on age. If you are a Major and running a B-Team and are supposed to be able to deploy to set up an area command and link up and run with your subordinate A-Teams you had best be able to meet the physical standard set for that younger Captain or you should not be running a B-Team with that mission. I am sure you can think of a lot of other examples. 18As are 18As and age should not define the requirements but duty position should. When you no longer can lead from the front and have to push from the rear your MOS should change and the requirements to include the physical performance standards should change also. I am sure some creative personnel managment type could come up with different 18 series identifiers just like we do with ASI, SSI, etc.

I'm afraid you already know the answer to that.

Brought to you in part by the same people who came up with "shoot him in the leg" school of marksmanship.

Flight accomodations paid for by GREEN AMMO, NAMBLA and other PINK TRIANGLE ORGANIZATIONS.