View Full Version : Will the Army CFT be Adopted?
Of course claims of gender discrimination exist, and perhaps legit concerns over logistics, but from an outsiders/non mil POV, seems like a major step in the right direction to test a wider range of basic fitness/performance tests for war fighters. What say you?
Can the Army's New Fitness Test Survive Critics and Become Official in April?
Nearly 10 years in the making, the Army plans to implement its controversial new fitness test later this spring. But a new batch of critiques about gender discrimination and the sheer logistical challenge of administering and training for the new test could imperil that deadline.
Creating the new Army Combat Fitness Test, or ACFT, has been a monumental undertaking for the service. The mission: rework how the force judges whether someone is physically fit enough to serve and fight America's wars. This is the first time since the 1980s that fitness has had any major overhaul in the Army.
Army leaders tested their new fitness standards in 2019, initiating a campaign to gather data that would decide which events ended up becoming a part of the final test, and how they would be scored. The goal was to have all soldiers judged by the new metrics in October 2020, but the ACFT immediately hit turbulence.
Cont:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/01/05/can-armys-new-fitness-test-survive-critics-and-become-official-april.html
I don't know the point of the article. The AFCT has already BEEN adopted.
I don't know the point of the article. The AFCT has already BEEN adopted.
According to the article dated 1/5/22 it's not formally/officially adopted until April if i understand correctly. That's not accurate? Army Times says same:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/12/27/will-the-acft-go-live-in-april-as-planned/
I don't know the point of the article. The AFCT has already BEEN adopted.
Yeah its not though, at least not fully. The Army currently does not have a test of record which is strange. Many use either the ACFT or APFT based on different circumstances but they haven't even solidifed scoring standards for the AFCT yet.
It should be adopted. The logistics are definitely difficult but it is enough of a benefit to work through that problem as it is a much better look at true physical capability. The grading standard is more complicated as I see arguments both ways but I don't think there should be a male or female standard, especially if arguments are being made to remove names and/or photos from other processes like promotion boards in an attempt to minimize racial and sexual discrimination.
Will it be adopted? Probably.
Will it be a viable diagnostic test for the force and readiness for combat? No.
You could probably give it wherever troops are deployed (like Syria and other places downrange, right now) if you brought all the equipment. It might be good for determing true combat fitness -- but I doubt the force is ready to reclassify those who fail to meet "Heavy" combat requirements into other job fields.
Not a good tool for measuring groups en masse, and not worth the time for just a few Soldiers (say half-a-dozen to go to a school requiring objective minimum scores).
You could give the old APFT anywhere, including on ship or around a FOB. All you needed was a stop watch, a sheet of paper, and a writing tool to record reps to determine score on tables on the back of a single score card or off the web.
As posted above there are no pass-fail tables, and everyone is on the same raw test score basis -- no allowance or deviation-exception for age, sex, or profiles.
If anyone studies mass mobilization and intake requirements to move hordes of civilians into uniform (i.e., WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and processing and verification for routine schools (basic leadership classes, specialty skill schools like airborne, air assault, and Ranger), the Army Command Good Idea Fairy didn't think this through. Imagine a 150-man company of trainees -- an ACFT takes hours and LOTS of supporting man-hours (timers and graders).
Will it be a adopted? Probably.
Will it be a viable diagnostic test for the force and readiness for combat? No.
You could probably give it wherever troops are deployed (like Syria and other places downrange, right now) if you brought all the equipment. It might be good for determing true combat fitness -- but I doubt the force is ready to reclassify those who fail to meet "Heavy" combat requirements into other job fields.
Not a good tool for measuring groups en masse, and not worth the time for just a few Soldiers (say half-a-dozen to go to a school requiring objective minimum scores).
You could give the old APFT anywhere, including on ship or around a FOB. All you needed was a stop watch, a sheet of paper, and a writing tool to record reps to determine score on tables on the back of a single score card or off the web.
As posted above there are no pass-fail tables, and everyone is on the same raw test score basis -- no allowance or deviation-exception for age, sex, or profiles.
If anyone studies mass mobilization and intake requirements to move hordes of civilians into uniform (i.e., WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and processing and verification for routine schools (basic leadership classes, specialty skill schools like airborne, air assault, and Ranger), the Army Command Good Idea Fairy didn't think this through. Imagine a 150-man company of trainees -- an ACFT takes hours and LOTS of supporting man-hours (timers and graders).
That is very problematic and I don't know how that one should be worked out.
One aspect I don't think they considered or thought through enough, is the consequences of the AFCT on the Guard/Reserves. To me, they are a formidable portion of our forces, and this test is just not a good fit for the part-time soldiers. They don't have the ability/capability to train daily, weekly, even monthly, on the equipment that is being used for the ACFT. At least with the old APFT, a soldier could do their own training at home. I think that is one reason why there has been a delay in full implementation of the new test; as well for how poorly the active duty female soldiers have been performing.
Sent using Tapatalk
The Regular Army doesn't have all the equipment they need -- how are the Guard and Reserve supposed to buy and distribute enough sets down to every battalion-size armory (let alone companies)?
One aspect I don't think they considered or thought through enough, is the consequences of the AFCT on the Guard/Reserves. To me, they are a formidable portion of our forces, and this test is just not a good fit for the part-time soldiers. They don't have the ability/capability to train daily, weekly, even monthly, on the equipment that is being used for the ACFT. At least with the old APFT, a soldier could do their own training at home. I think that is one reason why there has been a delay in full implementation of the new test; as well for how poorly the active duty female soldiers have been performing.
Sent using Tapatalk
I'm not sure that's a good argument. The test is a good measure of a wide range of physical performance that mimic common movements in combat or even the field. Not having constant access to Army provided equipment doesn't change that. All Soldiers shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for a gym membership but the idea that if the Army has to provide every thing anyone could ever need to be successful is a severe handicap and is one of the most common problems I have with junior Soldiers and NCOs.
Precisely.
For the individual Soldier (even more so for a Guardsman-Reservist or someone not around a military gym/installation -- how in the hell do you do diagnostics to see if you are maintaining-sustaining, let alone improving or declining)?
The APFT wasn't close to perfect by ANY means ... but the Army asked smart people over the years to come up with a diagnostic tool that didn't take equipment or tools (like monkey bars, run-trip-and-fall shuttles, medicine balls, bars, bar-bells, kettle bells, SKEDCOs, etc.) and officers and NCOs gave them the APFT with gender-age performance standards and height-weight criteria.
The entire Army (all components and branches including the ROTC) were the lab and guinea pigs for this change, and we're stuck with a screaming abortion three-four months out from codifying this for the next 40 years.
Fredericianer
01-07-22, 03:41
They do give tips on how to train for it, and to be honest I think the one event that might be difficult to test yourself on is the sprint drag carry,
https://www.army.mil/acft/
They do give tips on how to train for it, and to be honest I think the one event that might be difficult to test yourself on is the sprint drag carry,
https://www.army.mil/acft/
Forgot about that and you're right, aside from the s-d-c, every event has two bodyweight exercises that are recommended ways to train.
The regular old PFT/PRT/APFT/whatever you want to call it measures pretty much nothing except how fast you can run and how many X you can do in a given timeframe. Guys scoring 300 but dumber than a box of rocks would get promoted based on this.
The Army AFCT is loaded with good intentions; as a leader once told me about a decision I made, "good initiative but poor judgment." There absolutely needs to be a test based on functional fitness, but it seems as an outsider looking in that the army's version is loaded with problems. The Marines had a few teething problems with their CFT but it's out and seems to be working OK, so we know it can be done. And it's not like the Marines have cornered the market as there are a metric crap-ton of functional fitness tests out there.
Everyone was supposed to have a completed ACFT on record by 1 OCT 21 but it didn't count(or at least no negative consequences due to poor performance), until this new FY for implementation. There have already been issues with it, including Congress saying that it isn't "gender neutral" enough because most females were not scoring anywhere near on par with the males, since there is only the single scoring system. As far as access, the plan is to have one at each battalion level and that it is already "funded".
However,
The plank has been included now as an alternative to doing the leg tuck because so many people performed so poorly at it. You do not need a profile to do it either, you can choose to do it over the leg tuck which is the official exercise. There is already talk that there will likely be a return of the gender based scoring system. One of the major reasons the new PT test from a decade ago wasn't implemented was because of all the equipment required to perform all the tasks.
I see them trying to make it work because of money already spent, and it really does change the focus of Soldiers working out, but I can also see them giving up and going back to the APFT.
I trained specifically for the events in it and I've done the one that needed to be on record. Its definitely a smoker. The SDC will have you nearly tripping over your feet(I almost couldn't even pick my foot up on the return with the kettlebells), and that is probably the hardest 2 mile run I've ever ran, I was drained at the end.
I’m not in love with all aspects of this idea, but maybe we keep the APFT as-is and official test of record but include the ACFT as one of those 350-1 events like the 12 mile ruck or maybe even the unofficial standard of 4 mi/32 mins. If we groom culture correctly, it can be used enough to where its accepted as a way to show performance in things like O/NCOERs, job resumes and interviews, etc but not the test of record so the logistics, implementation measures at large schools, and other things don’t become as important.
That way soldiers still have the benefit of training for the test as I do think it’s solid from the true physical readiness aspect but the APFT is there for simplicity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ffhounddog
01-08-22, 00:09
All I know is I passed the new ACFT and I actually ran a faster two mile time than I did before. Scored a 488 due to only wanting to do the min on leg tucks because the 5 event exercise made me winded maxed that. I am 43 years old started in (BDUs and DCUs)and beat out young kids that look better than me in uniform I guess because I still have some love handles and my back hurts from combat. Battalion Commander female failed the ACFT two mile run and Kettle ball throw and she is Active Duty I am National Guard. She is also a young LTC below the zone promoted twice. I am a passed over 3 times Major waiting on my 20 years to retire. One more to go. 7 deployments I am good. If we deployed due to combat skills I would not allow her on the front line.
All I know is I passed the new ACFT and I actually ran a faster two mile time than I did before. Scored a 488 due to only wanting to do the min on leg tucks because the 5 event exercise made me winded maxed that. I am 43 years old started in (BDUs and DCUs)and beat out young kids that look better than me in uniform I guess because I still have some love handles and my back hurts from combat. Battalion Commander female failed the ACFT two mile run and Kettle ball throw and she is Active Duty I am National Guard. She is also a young LTC below the zone promoted twice. I am a passed over 3 times Major waiting on my 20 years to retire. One more to go. 7 deployments I am good. If we deployed due to combat skills I would not allow her on the front line.
Sounds like you have done a good job of maintaining essential fitness capabilities.
Here's a link to the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test with a video: https://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness-requirements/marine-corps-combat-fitness-test
Equipment needed: 30-pound .50-cal ammo cans, baseballs (stand-in grenades), stop watches, pencils, and paper. Enhancing equipment: cones and engineer tape. Executable anywhere -- ship, shore, by EVERYONE: recruits, cadets, HQMC and the Fleet Marine Force, MTOE or TDA - I&I staff.
K - for those saying it hasn't been adopted yet, I guess we're doing it all wrong at Fort Sam. They've done a couple already. There ARE issues about which is for record; different alternatives, etc., but it HAS been adopted. BTW, the Army Times is a propaganda rag - don't believe a word in it.
K - for those saying it hasn't been adopted yet, I guess we're doing it all wrong at Fort Sam. They've done a couple already. There ARE issues about which is for record; different alternatives, etc., but it HAS been adopted. BTW, the Army Times is a propaganda rag - don't believe a word in it.
The issue remains, for a PT test, it sure has been made to be complicated to administer, and apparently perform. If it wasn't having issues it wouldn't be getting air time.
All I know is I passed the new ACFT and I actually ran a faster two mile time than I did before. Scored a 488 due to only wanting to do the min on leg tucks because the 5 event exercise made me winded maxed that. I am 43 years old started in (BDUs and DCUs)and beat out young kids that look better than me in uniform I guess because I still have some love handles and my back hurts from combat. Battalion Commander female failed the ACFT two mile run and Kettle ball throw and she is Active Duty I am National Guard. She is also a young LTC below the zone promoted twice. I am a passed over 3 times Major waiting on my 20 years to retire. One more to go. 7 deployments I am good. If we deployed due to combat skills I would not allow her on the front line.
I’m right there with you. I’m a 42, 17 years into active duty SNCO. I could’ve done more on the deadlift but didn’t for similar reasons as you. Overall still, I scored a 512 on it but that was not a good run for me at all, I’m usually “one of those gazelles” on the 2 miler with usual 13:00 and below, even at 42. I scored pretty high on everything else but the run.
There were 4 females and 3 males(total), taking it and I believe all the females and 1 male did the plank.
tanksoldier
01-10-22, 05:17
The regular old PFT/PRT/APFT/whatever you want to call it measures pretty much nothing except how fast you can run and how many X you can do in a given timeframe. Guys scoring 300 but dumber than a box of rocks would get promoted based on this.
False. The Army PFT was relatively few points in the promotion system, and you need a recommendation to promote from a board regardless of points.
False. The Army PFT was relatively few points in the promotion system, and you need a recommendation to promote from a board regardless of points.
My example was Marines and Navy, where it is considered for promotion.
False. The Army PFT was relatively few points in the promotion system, and you need a recommendation to promote from a board regardless of points.
No, he's spot on, at least for Infantry and some other combat arms. Guys who couldn't figure out which number on their credit card was the card's number but who could get good PT test scores got promoted. It's not just the quantitative value of the PT score, but also how highly the Army culture values it. High scores on PT tests are frequently required to even be sent to the board.
No, he's spot on, at least for Infantry and some other combat arms. Guys who couldn't figure out which number on their credit card was the card's number but who could get good PT test scores got promoted. It's not just the quantitative value of the PT score, but also how highly the Army culture values it. High scores on PT tests are frequently required to even be sent to the board.
Absolutely, spot on. Every board appearance I went to as a young soldier included some level of interrogation about PT.
CSM: “What’s your PT score, SPC/SGT”?(knowingly has my pt card in front of him with my packet.
Me: “297 CSM!”
CSM looking at me straight faced and full of disappointment: “What are you weak in, SPC/SGT”?
I saw more high PT scores get promoted and or not get chartered because even though they were a terrible soldier or person(and sometimes both), they got a pass or extra chances.
Personal fitness is a good indicator of discipline and commitment, but it isn’t the end-all-be all.
tanksoldier
01-15-22, 17:15
Absolutely, spot on. Every board appearance I went to as a young soldier included some level of interrogation about PT.
CSM: “What’s your PT score, SPC/SGT”?(knowingly has my pt card in front of him with my packet.
Me: “297 CSM!”
CSM looking at me straight faced and full of disappointment: “What are you weak in, SPC/SGT”?
I saw more high PT scores get promoted and or not get chartered because even though they were a terrible soldier or person(and sometimes both), they got a pass or extra chances.
Personal fitness is a good indicator of discipline and commitment, but it isn’t the end-all-be all.
…and you still have to have enough points from other sources.
A good PT score, by itself, will not get you promoted…. which was the original allegation.
Your PT score is like anything else, if you put the work in it will go up. Not everybody will score 300 every time but getting a reasonable score isn’t that hard.
…and you still have to have enough points from other sources.
A good PT score, by itself, will not get you promoted…. which was the original allegation.
Your PT score is like anything else, if you put the work in it will go up. Not everybody will score 300 every time but getting a reasonable score isn’t that hard.
Absolutely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
…and you still have to have enough points from other sources.
A good PT score, by itself, will not get you promoted…. which was the original allegation.
Your PT score is like anything else, if you put the work in it will go up. Not everybody will score 300 every time but getting a reasonable score isn’t that hard.
The "allegation" to which you allege (see what I did there?) was based in my experiences with the Navy and Marine Corps. How it is leveraged in other branches I have no idea. I know both Marines and Sailors who were promoted not because of leadership or technical/tactical proficiency but because they scored 300, most of whom have water temperature IQs and poor leadership skills.
In both branches the PT scores are a composite of the equation for promotability, but often 'over weighed' (wink wink, nudge nudge).
We are in agreeance. I was just emphasizing how high PT scores were given more importance than other areas of Soldiering.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.