Just a couple of points. This is the *new* test that hasn’t been implemented yet. It might not ever be because the equipment demands for administration are very expensive and beyond the standard equipment available at the unit level.

My son who is currently in the guard thinks the specialized equipment requirements will doom the adoption of the new test.

Women have less upper body strength in general than men do. Doesn’t mean there is not a place for women in the military or for men who can’t pass the new test either. What it means is that that those people probably don’t belong in occupational specialities where upper body strength and extreme levels of physical fitness are required.

If you are going to require a nuclear sub reactor specialist to pass the same PT test as a Army Ranger our military is going to get 90 percent smaller in a big hurry, and not in a good way. It is will a non operational, non functional way.

Thanks Isab, I was wondering about that.

Also, are the physical tests based on physical tasks needing to be done, or are they a general test of how healthy someone is? Being able to run a mile in X minutes or X+y minutes for women might be more of an indication of commitment and general physical health than a specific situation that comes up in war... I don't know! Is there a military person who DOES know on here?

@Isab,

The problem is that they expect, no, they demand that teeny tiny women should be Army Rangers regardless of the physical requirement.

And of course we all know this is going to become a waste of already overpriced military resources.

Anyone remember the story of the SS lady being readily overpowered in the Obama White House?

"Also, are the physical tests based on physical tasks needing to be done, or are they a general test of how healthy someone is?"

They're pretty specific to tasks. One of the requirements on a modern soldier is that they have to carry an awful lot of gear. In addition to the usual assortment of weapons, ammunition and supplies, there's stuff like comm gear, situation awareness equipment, sensors to be deployed, video equipment, and small UAVs. All in the backpack. I've tried on a fully packed one. It weighs about 80 lbs. It's like carrying a large dog on your back. And Rangers have to be able to do that for days on end, through pretty much any kind of terrain.

As Isab points out, though, this test is being applied only to the specialties that require it. There's a whole bunch of jobs that don't. Remember that the "tip of the spear", the soldiers in the field, is only about 10% of the entire Army complement of uniforms, civilians and contractors.

Anyone remember the story of the SS lady being readily overpowered in the Obama White House? ~ Crid at October 11, 2019 6:45 AM

How about the older female bailiff at the Atlanta courthouse who was overpowered by a violent prisoner? She: less than 100 lbs. He: 200+ lbs.

The average man is at the 99% percentile of women's strength. There are a few women who are stronger than the average man, and maybe if you conscript all of them you can field a battalion, maybe two.

All in the backpack. I've tried on a fully packed one. It weighs about 80 lbs.

For someone at 200 lbs, that is less than 50% of body weight. For most women, that is more than 50% of their body weight, and maybe much more.

are the physical tests based on physical tasks needing to be done

Maybe in an abstract way. Also depends on what the job is. A reactor specialist has different physical requirements than the trigger pullers, artillery men and tank crews.

The M795 shell weighs about 105 pounds for the artillery. Tankers have to be able to repair/remove tank treads, and the loader has to be able to load HEAT rounds, which come in at just under 55 pounds. The trigger pullers get the 80 pound pack. And that doesn't include their protective gear, another 30 or more pounds depending on what they're taking (or leaving out).

https://www.ptxnomad.com/what-do-soldiers-carry-and-what-does-it-weigh/

The longer the duration and more specialized the soldier, the more gear that needs to be carried, especially if you’re stepping out of an airplane inside enemy territory.

Bottom line: almost all women are not physically equipped to handle the demands of infantry combat, especially if they have to march to the battle. In the current age, most people don't get to drive up in a troop carrier, get dropped off and engage the enemy.

This same test situation was an issue in most police and fire departments in the US 50 years ago, and the tests were relaxed. One result is that if you are trapped in a burning building today, most firefighters are not strong enough to get you out.

One might almost celebrate this situation as a chance for evolution to improve the intelligence of the human race -- but a lot of smart people are stuck in countries run by these stupid PC rules and will die right along with the people who wrote them.

A military fitness test cannot be based solely on the tasks relevant to the job. It is not like a civilian job. Forward Operating Bases get attacked. Run-Hide-Fight doesn’t apply when a military base is under enemy attack and you’re a soldier/sailor/marine/airman.

The US military learned that lesson the hard way in WWII when, having underestimated the number of frontline soldiers needed, it put support troops in frontline units to disastrous effect as unprepared soldiers went up against crack Wehrmacht troops.

The part history classes and Hollywood don’t cover is how badly mauled our troops were in the early firefights - prompting Erwin Rommel to supposedly quip, “The American soldier know less, but learns faster than any other soldier in the world.”

I can only add that Amy's comment -- "Yes, the answer is lowering standard -- which will lead to women physically unfit for the military to be admitted, possibly leading to the death of men who need the physical support of those around them in dire situations." -- plus the excerpt from this gentleman's whining screed, is just more proof that modern feminism (po-mo to some folks) will simply ruin everything that it touches.

To be clear, Amy's comment that I quoted is right on target, and not part of the proof of ruinous modern feminism, but just a telling of the inevitable result of modern feminism contaminating this new test.

I can only add that Amy's comment -- "Yes, the answer is lowering standard -- which will lead to women physically unfit for the military to be admitted, possibly leading to the death of men who need the physical support of those around them in dire situations." -- plus the excerpt from this gentleman's whining screed, is just more proof that modern feminism (po-mo to some folks) will simply ruin everything that it touches.

mpetrie98 at October 11, 2019 10:42 AM

I have always been concerned that at the same time the physical standards were being amped up, the intelligence standards were being dialed down just like colleges, to satisfy the diversity bean counters. Particularly in the officer ranks. This wastes even more resources and lives than lowering PT requirements. Stupid had always killed more people in a war than physical weakness.

Most any guy can pick up another guy and carry him over his shoulders (fireman's carry). I have done this with guys bigger than me back in the day. This is how you rescue a wounded soldier. Women cannot do this in general. So I guess that wounded soldier will just have to die.

Progressives treat professions like cop, firefighter and soldier as abstractions, not as real jobs with life or death consequences. Women cannot hold an active fire hose nor can they carry a person down the stairs. I read that the manual for one city said that women could drag you down the stairs by your feet (bonk bonk bonk)--I kid you not. The only reason more people don't die in fires is that very few women want to be firefighters.

On the TV, female cops easily chase down and subdue criminals--hahahahaha. right. I saw a video from Sweden I think where a drunk was unruly on the street and 3 female cops could not do anything with him. A male cop had to come arrest him. If you put females out in patrol cars they are at huge risk when they pull someone over so you may have to put and man and a woman in the patrol car--2x the $. When I backed into a car in a parking lot the first cop was female, but backup arrived in minutes (and this in a nice town). Never seen backup when a male cop answered an accident call.

Hand grip strength is a quick measure of overall muscle strength. The curves for men and women with age almost don't overlap at all, such that a man in his 60s has a stronger grip than all women of any age.

None of this of course has anything to do with the "value" or virtue of women. It just is what it is. I am an average size guy and I don't think I should be a cop or a firefighter and I might not make the artillary cut--why should a woman who is much weaker than me? Just because you want the job doesn't mean you should put other people's lives at risk. That is what it boils down to.

"If you are going to require a nuclear sub reactor specialist to pass the same PT test as a Army Ranger our military is going to get 90 percent smaller in a big hurry, and not in a good way. It is will a non operational, non functional way."

They don't now, and to suggest that this would be the case is not the most honest way to address the issue.

What IS true, shipboard, is that damage control doesn't give a DAMN about what gender you are or how tender or specialized your job is - and the Navy has DONE this study and then lied about the results.

We are actually betting there will BE no combat at sea - just a one-sided delivery of ordnance. China, for one, has other ideas, and supersonic, stealthy cruise missiles.

Here's a short article including the USN study. It is notably short of some personality disorders allowed into service with some women; if you read the USS Fitzgerald collision report, you will see that one of the deciding factors was that Natalie wasn't talking to Sarah. The CIC and OOD allowed their personalities to interfere with their duty, damage their ship and kill their crew.

Some standards are in order, and so long as anyone in the chain thinks "women should get their way" there is negligence and fantasy in the planning stage. Military service is about the mission, not any person. Gay, straight, man, woman, animal or vegetable, if you cannot do what is necessary in battle - not in online games - you are doomed.

This has already happened.

“Here's a short article including the USN study. It is notably short of some personality disorders allowed into service with some women; if you read the USS Fitzgerald collision report, you will see that one of the deciding factors was that Natalie wasn't talking to Sarah. The CIC and OOD allowed their personalities to interfere with their duty, damage their ship and kill their crew.”

If you think this is unique to women, boy do you have a lot to learn.

For enlightenment about the competitive nature of men in the military, personality conflicts, and lying and withholding of information to make their competition look bad, no matter how many other people this might kill or maim I refer you to “Grant by Ron Chernow. Once you have gotten through this worthy example of lying, conniving, cheating and back biting, get back to me with a different theory.
Because frankly, you usually come across as a misogynist.

What IS true, shipboard, is that damage control doesn't give a DAMN about what gender you are or how tender or specialized your job is - and the Navy has DONE this study and then lied about the results. ~ Radwaste at October 11, 2019 1:02 PM

Daniel Gallery, in his book Clear the Decks, recalled going to US Navy damage control training during World War II. As the new captain of an escort carrier, he wanted to understand what the damage control process was.

Relating his experience, Gallery said the old training was mostly lecture. Losing the Lexington and the Yorktown in the space of a few months had made the Navy re-examine its training.

The revised damage control training Gallery went through consisted of locking the party in a room with some training and some firefighting equipment, then setting it on fire. It was a pass/fail course. The goal was to save ships, not to placate special interest groups.

The more intense training paid off. The Franklin suffered damage far greater than the damage that sank the Lexington years earlier, but survived due, at least in part, to better damage control.

"locking the party in a room with some training and some firefighting equipment, then setting it on fire."

In boot camp they had a concrete-and-steel bunker made up - a passageway with big openings on one side and a compartment with a standard hatch door on the other.

Pour in fuel and light it, we go in with a fire hose equipped with a long (and I do mean long) brass wand with a big pineapple on the end - it looked like a pineapple that was drilled with about a zillion tiny holes.

Squat low, open the hatch - and duck as flames roared out about 4 feet above the deck and out the "windows" on the other side of the passageway. Great Lakes wind was murder.

Duckwalk up a bit, heads below the flames roaring above us, shove the nozzle in, open the valve, and the pineapple would vaporize the 600 psi water into fog.

In short order we'd reduce the available air and cool the space - and that's how you put out an oil fire with water. While wearing a raincoat for protection, of course.

"Because frankly, you usually come across as a misogynist."

Read the report. Read the USN study. Read about the deaths caused by the enforcement of political correctness by Pat Schroeder, Colorado senator.

They amount to Affirmative Action for women, that's all.

If you were big into logic, you'd realize that none of your claims set aside the marked and obvious physical strength deficiencies of women. Pretending otherwise is simply lying.

And it insults those women who are capable.

I served 11 years, qualified on subs, was nuclear propulsion plant supervisor, made 3 patrols on an SSBN and have seen the underside of a Russian sub at sea in a fast attack boat (for that, I properly credit my skipper).

So I should read a book, huh?

Do you not read this very blog about the differences in competitive tactics between the genders?

Now, I'd love to hear how the job of going to sea has changed. Do tell.

So I should read a book, huh?

Do you not read this very blog about the differences in competitive tactics between the genders?

Now, I'd love to hear how the job of going to sea has changed. Do tell.

Radwaste at October 11, 2019 8:05

The job of going to sea has changed in infinite ways in the last 200 years. I don’t see any kind of serious argument here.

Yes. You should read the book. I don’t find your analogies persuasive. And I think we have a far greater problem of dumbing down the officer and senior NCO corps in the name of affirmative action. The rigorous testing in certain highly technical fields controls for this somewhat but I was in the military in the tail end of MacNamara’s hundred thousand and you would not believe the number of operational problems, deaths and discipline problems caused by dumb troops.

Even in 1984 there was a certain Texas ROTC program which had never had a single individual pass the Field Artillery officers Basic course without a waiver.

Pointing the guns in the wrong direction will do a hell of a lot more damage than one individual being unable to lift the shell. And this is true across the board.

So stop trying to justify your misogyny. I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone here is buying it. Physical strength can be important to a point, but there are bigger problems if you can’t read the instruction manual on a 577 or operate the 50 cal.

If brawn was as important as you think it is, the 18 year old track athlete should be commanding the division, and there would be no place in the Armed forces for anyone over 35, man or woman.

"If brawn was as important as you think it is, the 18 year old track athlete should be commanding the division, and there would be no place in the Armed forces for anyone over 35, man or woman."

Well, here's the goggles again: you missed the part where the average 60-year-old man has more grip strength than the vast majority of women of ANY age.

"...200 years..." Heh. What an obvious pile. The standards in question would be lowered today, with today's military tasks. Ships are made of steel, which gets holes in it from artillery, missiles and torpedoes. Aircraft tools, ammunition, food to load on a ship, tires on a vehicle still weigh a ton -- but there is a fantasy: no enemy will ever force the smaller, weaker people whose computers are offline because of the missile strike to physically fight for their lives.

Hey. Lower standards. I am sure you get to shoot at "the ladies' tee" at Camp Perry. Right?

Lowering standards lowers performance for everyone involved.

The bottom line is that it is a bad idea.