ACFT 3.0

4,679 Views | 28 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by The Last Cobra Commander
MarathonAg12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:59p, 2/12/21
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.
Reply Quote
1 edit
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31p, 2/12/21
AG
Glad I ETSd!
Reply Quote
2
maverick2076
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32p, 2/12/21
At this point, they may as well just go back to the APFT.
Reply Quote
13
MarathonAg12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JABQ04 • 11:20p, 2/12/21
JABQ04 said:
Glad I ETSd!


I submitted my REFRAD a couple weeks ago.

Start terminal leave in September
Reply Quote
6
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarathonAg12 • 11:43p, 2/12/21
AG
Congrats.
Reply Quote
2
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarathonAg12 • 11:56a, 2/13/21
AG
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.
Reply Quote
10
CT'97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 12:32p, 2/13/21
AG
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.


This was my thought. I expected it would take soldiers missing promotion boards because they had missed out of chances for a PT test as the difficulties scheduling the thing with busy training schedules grew.

I think something better than the APFT needs to be done, but it's not this. Put the APFT back in place, something I've heard some units are doing already on the local level, then figure out a better solution.
Texas A&M - 148 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
Reply Quote
4
MarathonAg12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CT'97 • 7:29p, 2/13/21
CT'97 said:
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.


This was my thought. I expected it would take soldiers missing promotion boards because they had missed out of chances for a PT test as the difficulties scheduling the thing with busy training schedules grew.

I think something better than the APFT needs to be done, but it's not this. Put the APFT back in place, something I've heard some units are doing already on the local level, then figure out a better solution.


I'll play devils advocate here and say Soldiers and Officers love the ACFT. Your lines almost turn into teams and it gets competitive, people cheering each other on, Soldiers get to showcase certain skills. I had a blast doing it! Compared to the APFT, where it has to be quiet and everyone's nervous. We managed to get all the equipment out in Egypt just fine and the logistics wasn't too bad.

It's how big Army is implementing is the issue.
Reply Quote
5
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarathonAg12 • 1:56p, 2/14/21
AG
MarathonAg12 said:
CT'97 said:
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.


This was my thought. I expected it would take soldiers missing promotion boards because they had missed out of chances for a PT test as the difficulties scheduling the thing with busy training schedules grew.

I think something better than the APFT needs to be done, but it's not this. Put the APFT back in place, something I've heard some units are doing already on the local level, then figure out a better solution.


I'll play devils advocate here and say Soldiers and Officers love the ACFT. Your lines almost turn into teams and it gets competitive, people cheering each other on, Soldiers get to showcase certain skills. I had a blast doing it! Compared to the APFT, where it has to be quiet and everyone's nervous. We managed to get all the equipment out in Egypt just fine and the logistics wasn't too bad.

It's how big Army is implementing is the issue.


That's all fine and dandy for active duty, but as a Reservist, that means it takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and schedule. It ends up being an entire battle assembly devoted to completing an ACFT. I know a more accurate testing system is needed, but the ACFT is not it, IMO.
Reply Quote
4
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13p, 2/14/21
I've been retired since 2016, before they introduced the ACFT (although they've been talking about it at least in some form since 2001, if not earlier.), so take my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Fact: War is a gender-neutral environment. The physical tasks soldiers have to be able to perform don't care about XY or XX chromosomes. Any soldier has to be able to lift the same artillery shell, carry the same weapons and basic load of ammo, get across open ground fast enough to avoid getting shot, and so on. (Similarly, be able to sit at the same desk and process supply requisitions. But I digress.)

On the two-way live fire range, there are no male and female scales for performing these tasks.

In eliminating the male and female scales for the service's standard fitness test, the Army acknowledged this fact. In classifying MOSs according to physical requirements, they acknowledged that a finance clerk doesn't need to meet the same minimums as an 11B or 13B (just to give examples. Not an inclusive list.)

The test also established certain minimums that all soldiers have to meet, regardless of MOS.

I'm not going to get into whether or not the ACFT as configured is an accurate measuring tool. That's a different debate.

The problem is a political one, and it all centers around differing definitions of fairness.

To me, fairness means every soldier is judged against the same standard. Can you lift a specified weight a minimum number of times? Can you run a specified distance (with or without a specified load) in under a certain time? This is the definition of fairness the ACFT uses.

To some people, fairness, at least in this arena, means that every soldier has an equal opportunity to pass the test, regardless of XX or XY. They seek to measure fitness against a theoretical standard of how "fit" a soldier is for their sex. (And yes, I use biological sex, because when it comes to the area of physical strength and capacity, that's what matters.)

This, of course, means you have to use different standards for males and females, because the average male is stronger, faster, and has greater cardio-respiratory capacity than the average female. This is why there are separate sports competitions for men and women. This is reflected in the APFT scoring standards, especially the push up and 2 mile run events, where the max score on the female scale is barely passing on the male scale. The Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test has male and female scales, and they reflect the same dynamic - max for females is barely above passing for males.

I do find it ironic that there's a very large amount of overlap between the politicians and advocacy groups who insist that women can do everything just as well as men (if not better) and the ones who are insisting that female soldiers be graded, at least on this test of physical fitness, according to different (lower) standards than male soldiers.

-----------------------

Random thought: maybe instead of calling it a fitness test, the Army should call it a "physical capability test." Because instead of measuring fitness against that theoretical standard, you're measuring what the soldier is physically capable of doing. Two different things, really.

Edit to add: I think the Army (and other services) should have one set of standards that applies to all soldiers. Including either letting the males have long hair, or making the females get high and tights. And if females can have skirts with their dress uniforms, males should be allowed as well.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 2:06a, 2/15/21
AG
13B test should include humping 155mm rounds from point A to point B or combat loading the FAASV
Reply Quote
2
MarathonAg12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 10:56a, 2/15/21
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
CT'97 said:
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.


This was my thought. I expected it would take soldiers missing promotion boards because they had missed out of chances for a PT test as the difficulties scheduling the thing with busy training schedules grew.

I think something better than the APFT needs to be done, but it's not this. Put the APFT back in place, something I've heard some units are doing already on the local level, then figure out a better solution.


I'll play devils advocate here and say Soldiers and Officers love the ACFT. Your lines almost turn into teams and it gets competitive, people cheering each other on, Soldiers get to showcase certain skills. I had a blast doing it! Compared to the APFT, where it has to be quiet and everyone's nervous. We managed to get all the equipment out in Egypt just fine and the logistics wasn't too bad.

It's how big Army is implementing is the issue.


That's all fine and dandy for active duty, but as a Reservist, that means it takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and schedule. It ends up being an entire battle assembly devoted to completing an ACFT. I know a more accurate testing system is needed, but the ACFT is not it, IMO.
ACFT is the future. Unfortunately, FORSCOM isn't going to listen to the complaints of National Guard and Reservists. Is that fair? Not at all. But the Army wants to move to a combat oriented physical training standard. APFT is going away.

This is the way.
Reply Quote
1
The Last Cobra Commander
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 1:46p, 2/15/21
AG
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
CT'97 said:
BQ08 said:
MarathonAg12 said:
What's are you Army cats think of the latest version

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/11/armys-revamped-acft-would-create-gender-specific-promotion-evaluation-categories.html

The Service Women's Action Network, or SWAN, in mid-November said it is unclear whether the ACFT, which was designed to be gender-neutral, is fair to female soldiers, arguing that fewer than 50% of women passed the ACFT in the third quarter of 2020. That was partly due to the methodology the Army used to standardize the test, called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.

Sgt. Major of the Army Michael Grinston said that the review would likely be complete by the end of the year.

Like the ACFT 2.0, the new 3.0 would still be age-neutral and consist of six events: the maximum deadlift; standing power throw; hand-release push-ups; sprint, drag and carry; leg tuck; and two-mile run.

The 3.0 would add a 1-100 point scale to the alternate plank event for soldiers who struggle to perform the minimum requirement of one leg tuck. The 3.0 would allow soldiers to choose between the plank and the leg tuck, a change from ACFT 2.0 which required them to attempt the leg tuck first.


Honestly the ACFT is too equipment intensive for my tastes. The beauty of the APFT is it takes an hour to knock out, and can be conducted just about anywhere. ACFT effectively becomes a half to full day operation.


This was my thought. I expected it would take soldiers missing promotion boards because they had missed out of chances for a PT test as the difficulties scheduling the thing with busy training schedules grew.

I think something better than the APFT needs to be done, but it's not this. Put the APFT back in place, something I've heard some units are doing already on the local level, then figure out a better solution.


I'll play devils advocate here and say Soldiers and Officers love the ACFT. Your lines almost turn into teams and it gets competitive, people cheering each other on, Soldiers get to showcase certain skills. I had a blast doing it! Compared to the APFT, where it has to be quiet and everyone's nervous. We managed to get all the equipment out in Egypt just fine and the logistics wasn't too bad.

It's how big Army is implementing is the issue.


That's all fine and dandy for active duty, but as a Reservist, that means it takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and schedule. It ends up being an entire battle assembly devoted to completing an ACFT. I know a more accurate testing system is needed, but the ACFT is not it, IMO.
National Guard Towed Artillery Battalion Commander here... The APFT is easier to conduct. The ACFT is comprehensive and better. It's easily administered in 2 hours or less. I've seen it as recently as 2 weeks ago. If your reserve unit can't find two hours in the training schedule, it's a leadership problem.
"The leftist is driven by something other than facts and can't be cured."
Reply Quote
3
bigtruckguy3500
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09p, 2/15/21
Has anyone got hit with that medicine ball yet?

I think the ACFT is pretty good, but if it's legitimately difficult to conduct due to equipment needs and what not, the Marine CFT is pretty good. 800m sprint, ammo can lift (military press), and "movement under fire" which includes multiple things (ammo can carry, buddy carry, low crawl, agility drill, and some other stuff). Really all you need is ammo cans.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
bigtruckguy3500
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:51p, 4/1/21
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2021/03/31/army-combat-fitness-disaster-units-refusing-to-take-test-medics-bailing/

Think the headline is a bit of click bait (as usual), but if even partially true, not good.
Reply Quote
APHIS AG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:00a, 4/2/21
It is going to be just like the height and weight standards.

One side for men. The "fat" side for women.
Reply Quote
2
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57a, 4/2/21
I wrote this for a discussion of the same article.

----------
As a disinterested (retired) observer, I think there are two major problem areas with the ACFT. The first is complexity; the second is a political.

The ACFT as implemented is a gross violation of the KISS principle. Way too many moving parts, may too much special equipment. The overriding virtue of the old APFT is simplicity. The article hits this nail right on the head. That said, I think the APFT was biased a bit much in favor of endurance as opposed to strength. I think that could have been fixed, however, without going to the extremes that the ACFT does.

(As an interesting aside, the leg tuck, which seems to be the event causing most of the problems on the political end, (due to females passing at a rate of 50% or less) is pretty simple, equipment-wise. Pull up bars are easy and cheap to build. And I know it's something that's been on the radar for being put into the fitness test since at least 2001. So it's something that the Master Fitness types have been looking at for a good while.)

The political problem is that fact that, since there's only one scoring standard, females on average overall score significantly lower than males, and large numbers have difficulty passing at all. This generates the perception that the test discriminates against females. I think this is a bit misinformed: The test is simply a set of standards that are the same for males and females. Biology is what is discriminating, or at least working against, females in this area. (Whether the ACFT is measuring the right physical fitness attributes, and whether the events used are accurate gauges, is a different debate entirely, and beyond my ken.)

Based on the timing, I'd wager that it's a safe bet that the catalyst for the roll out of the ACFT was the ending of the ban on women in the combat arms. If all jobs in the Army are going to be open to women, then I think having a single set of physical fitness standards, not gender normed, is perfectly reasonable. I also think that adjusting those standards based on MOS/branch is also perfectly reasonable finance clerks, doctors, lawyers, etc., don't need to meet the same fitness standards as infantry troops, combat engineers, artillery gunners, and other such types. That is one thing that I think the ACFT does right.

The problem is that males, on average, are stronger, faster, and have more endurance than females. This is a function of biology, and not something the Army has the ability to change. (Neither does Congress, but don't try telling them that.) So if you have a single scoring scale for both sexes, you will get one of two results. One is what we're seeing with the ACFT: females failing at high rates. Or, if you set the minimum passing scores at a level where most of the females will pass, then the males will pass easily, and in aggregate will get much higher scores. (This problem could, I believe, be at least partly ameliorated by simply noting Pass/Fail for the fitness test on promotion related documents.)

I personally don't believe that having a single scoring standard, instead of separate male and female standards, is discriminatory. Nor do I think that the Army went to a single standard with the intent of discriminating against females. The problem is that, under the doctrine of disparate impact, intent doesn't matter. Under disparate impact, even if a test or standard is neutral on its face and was created and implemented without discriminatory intent, if that test or standard results in a protected group or class failing at disproportionate rates, the policy is judged to be discriminatory. (See Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)). This doctrine originated with regards to race in equal employment law, but has since been expanded to include sex in jobs such as firefighters where large proportions of females had trouble meeting physical requirements. This is the definition of discrimination that Congress will be using, assuredly.

So what's the solution? If I were CSA for a day (or however long it took, just for this one thing):

[ol]
  • Simplify the damn test. 4 events, max, and at most one item of special equipment. I'll be hard to convince on that one item, and it has to be something that RC/NG soldiers can easily access. (I don't consider pull up bars to be special equipment, FWIW. Or sand bags.)
  • Keep the single scoring scale, but set the 'any soldier' minimums at a point where most soldiers, male and female, can pass, and doctors and such don't get their panties in a bunch over it. (Note: part of the discussion where this was originally posted concerned a potential exodus of medical and JAG types due to the increased difficulty of the ACFT.)
  • Implement higher standards, with strong, defensible logic for those standards, for the physically more demanding MOS/branches, especially combat arms. That is the hill that I would die on. Machineguns and ammo don't get lighter because a female has to carry them. Neither do 155mm HE rounds. The enemy isn't going to give a female soldier longer to cross that open ground before they shoot her. The wounded comrade who needs to be dragged out of the line of fire doesn't get any lighter if a female soldier is doing the dragging.
    • One Army. One standard.[/ol]
    Reply Quote
    clarythedrill
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    8:49a, 4/2/21
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......
    Reply Quote
    3
    GarryowenAg
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 8:01a, 4/6/21
    AG
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Reply Quote
    1
    clarythedrill
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to GarryowenAg • 3:11p, 4/6/21
    Dumb_Loggy said:
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Cooks working harder than the Infantry, Combat Engineers, Armor and FA? That is laughable and you probably need to stop posting.

    The Army has blatantly come out and said that Combat Arms is a harder job and requires you to be in better shape to accomplish the Combat Arms mission, hence the tougher PT standards for them over the other groups. Just like doctors, dentist, lawyers, pilots, etc...get pro pay, maybe the Army needs to come up with Combat Arms pay.

    P.S. Your user name says it all!
    Reply Quote
    2
    CT'97
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to GarryowenAg • 5:35p, 4/6/21
    AG
    Dumb_Loggy said:
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Are there situations where a cook has worked as hard, maybe, does the cooks job inherently require heavy lifting or doing more physically hard work than the average combat arms soldier, not even close.
    Texas A&M - 148 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
    Reply Quote
    1
    GarryowenAg
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 9:22p, 4/6/21
    AG
    Meh! Just trying to argue a different perspective (albeit I didn't provide much of an argument). Regardless, I've spent the majority of my career in an ABCT and ECAB, and I'll be damned if some fat tanker, or aviator tells me they work harder than my Joes.
    Reply Quote
    3
    MarathonAg12
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 11:26a, 4/8/21
    clarythedrill said:
    Dumb_Loggy said:
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Cooks working harder than the Infantry, Combat Engineers, Armor and FA? That is laughable and you probably need to stop posting.

    The Army has blatantly come out and said that Combat Arms is a harder job and requires you to be in better shape to accomplish the Combat Arms mission, hence the tougher PT standards for them over the other groups. Just like doctors, dentist, lawyers, pilots, etc...get pro pay, maybe the Army needs to come up with Combat Arms pay.

    P.S. Your user name says it all!


    He's a dumb Loggy!
    Reply Quote
    1
    bigtruckguy3500
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 2:37p, 4/8/21
    Well, pro-pay is because base pay + BAH/BAS is considerably less than these individuals would make on the outside as civilians - with a few exceptions. It's a benefit to keep them in. Even then the pay often pales in comparison for some professionals.

    There are certain individuals that get special pays (jump pay, dive pay, flight pay, etc) for various reasons - incentive to take on a harder MOS, incentive to keep up with their annual physicals or you lose the pay, or possibly because of the increased hazards.

    Regardless of how difficult it is I don't think you'll see an increase in general combat arms pay, or a new special pay, until there aren't enough to fill the ranks. And if that happens, you'll probably see an increase in sign-on/recruiting/retention bonuses rather than an across the board special pay.
    Reply Quote
    2
    clarythedrill
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to bigtruckguy3500 • 3:54p, 4/8/21
    bigtruckguy3500 said:
    Well, pro-pay is because base pay + BAH/BAS is considerably less than these individuals would make on the outside as civilians - with a few exceptions. It's a benefit to keep them in. Even then the pay often pales in comparison for some professionals.

    There are certain individuals that get special pays (jump pay, dive pay, flight pay, etc) for various reasons - incentive to take on a harder MOS, incentive to keep up with their annual physicals or you lose the pay, or possibly because of the increased hazards.

    Regardless of how difficult it is I don't think you'll see an increase in general combat arms pay, or a new special pay, until there aren't enough to fill the ranks. And if that happens, you'll probably see an increase in sign-on/recruiting/retention bonuses rather than an across the board special pay.
    I am well aware of what pro pay is and why it is given, I used it as an example of what you could use for Combat Arms. I guess a better comparison would be Drill Sergeant/Recruiter pay.

    And I guarantee you that if you started paying Combat Arms more, those MOSs would never be short.
    Reply Quote
    bigtruckguy3500
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 5:16p, 4/8/21
    Yeah, but everyone reading this board doesn't have your experience and knowledge about such things.
    Reply Quote
    maverick2076
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 9:09a, 4/9/21
    clarythedrill said:
    Dumb_Loggy said:
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Cooks working harder than the Infantry, Combat Engineers, Armor and FA? That is laughable and you probably need to stop posting.

    The Army has blatantly come out and said that Combat Arms is a harder job and requires you to be in better shape to accomplish the Combat Arms mission, hence the tougher PT standards for them over the other groups. Just like doctors, dentist, lawyers, pilots, etc...get pro pay, maybe the Army needs to come up with Combat Arms pay.

    P.S. Your user name says it all!


    Based on the last email from the SMA, I think they may have removed the MOS tiers. It says "ACFT 3.0 maintains the gender neutral baseline of 60 points in each event...This baseline is the expected standard to be a Soldier in any MOS"

    So I think the MOS tiers are gone now. Not that they made a lot of sense in execution anyways. For example, my 74D's, who go into the hot zone in full level A suits with SCBA's, were in the lowest tier. My 42A PS NCO was in the middle tier.
    Reply Quote
    clarythedrill
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to maverick2076 • 7:40p, 4/10/21
    maverick2076 said:
    clarythedrill said:
    Dumb_Loggy said:
    clarythedrill said:
    I recently retired (thank god), so it doesnt affect me, but since the Army is saying certain jobs and MOS's are harder than others, Combat Arms should also get paid more, as they work infinitely harder than the clerks, lawyers, etc.......

    This is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this board. Hell, I've seen cooks work harder in the field than combat arms troops.
    Cooks working harder than the Infantry, Combat Engineers, Armor and FA? That is laughable and you probably need to stop posting.

    The Army has blatantly come out and said that Combat Arms is a harder job and requires you to be in better shape to accomplish the Combat Arms mission, hence the tougher PT standards for them over the other groups. Just like doctors, dentist, lawyers, pilots, etc...get pro pay, maybe the Army needs to come up with Combat Arms pay.

    P.S. Your user name says it all!


    Based on the last email from the SMA, I think they may have removed the MOS tiers. It says "ACFT 3.0 maintains the gender neutral baseline of 60 points in each event...This baseline is the expected standard to be a Soldier in any MOS"

    So I think the MOS tiers are gone now. Not that they made a lot of sense in execution anyways. For example, my 74D's, who go into the hot zone in full level A suits with SCBA's, were in the lowest tier. My 42A PS NCO was in the middle tier.
    It really makes you wonder who the genius's were who came up with the whole thing, and makes you shake your head as to who thought it was a good idea to implement it. I was all for a different type of APFT, but this version is too equipment and time intensive.
    Reply Quote
    1
    maverick2076
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to clarythedrill • 7:53p, 4/10/21
    I completely agree. And every unit is supposed to do 2 diagnostic ACFTs this FY. We have done zero. The equipment isn't available.
    Reply Quote
    The Last Cobra Commander
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to maverick2076 • 1:02a, 4/11/21
    AG
    maverick2076 said:
    I completely agree. And every unit is supposed to do 2 diagnostic ACFTs this FY. We have done zero. The equipment isn't available.
    Just curious, where are you at that the equipment isn't available? I've been to installations from east to west, north to south, Active Duty Posts, Reserve/NG Armories, and deployed in the last couple of years, I've seen the equipment everywhere.

    "The leftist is driven by something other than facts and can't be cured."
    Reply Quote
    Refresh
    Page 1 of 1
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.