1st Woman to Take Command of a US Army Infantry Division

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
8,565
Likes
6,294
Location
MA
Here's where I think it gets iffy... I haven't been a POG very long, but I do know that a lot of junior POG officers and POG senior enlisted don't have the slightest clue about infantry stuff, down to some basic weapons handling and marksmanship stuff. I don't know any general grade officers with either background so I don't know what or when they learn certain stuff, and how that might compare. At least on the level where I'm at, there are absolute masters of their profession, but their profession isn't infantry.

On the big sand table, perhaps things are different. That said, there are certain realities of infantry capabilities that you only learn being in the infantry. I would think at the very least having some time as a platoon commander in the infantry should be looked at heavily when looking for future senior infantry leaders. I was only ever a squad leader, but I know that our reality is alien to a lot of POGs.
This is the Guard; we shouldn't forget that, either for the pros or the cons. But I think the modern Aviation army, at field-grade level and higher, would require AVN battalion and brigade commanders to know a great deal about the capabilities of the infantrymen they support. the generals I knew well (all two of them) were generals not because they'd been infantrymen, but because they'd mastered the joint game. I don't see why an aviation officer couldn't do that; they all go to the same CGSC and the same War College.

Plus, in the army, not all infantrymen are created equal. An 11M breaking track on a Bradley hasn't got much in common with the 11C shooting 120mm mortars out of the back of another Bradley, who in turn hasn't got much in common with an 11C humping 60mm mortars in an airborne rifle company. And infantry officers get just a small taste of all those. There's no way to guarantee an officer's breadth of experience no matter what their background.

Was she airlift, attack, or what?
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
This is the Guard; we shouldn't forget that, either for the pros or the cons. But I think the modern Aviation army, at field-grade level and higher, would require AVN battalion and brigade commanders to know a great deal about the capabilities of the infantrymen they support. the generals I knew well (all two of them) were generals not because they'd been infantrymen, but because they'd mastered the joint game. I don't see why an aviation officer couldn't do that; they all go to the same CGSC and the same War College.

Plus, in the army, not all infantrymen are created equal. An 11M breaking track on a Bradley hasn't got much in common with the 11C shooting 120mm mortars out of the back of another Bradley, who in turn hasn't got much in common with an 11C humping 60mm mortars in an airborne rifle company. And infantry officers get just a small taste of all those. There's no way to guarantee an officer's breadth of experience no matter what their background.

Was she airlift, attack, or what?
I hate the attitude that the Guard is not the RA, and therefore they should get a pass or be held to a lesser standard (making exception for the obvious extra time it takes to spool up a unit). I know many hold this attitude... it's dumb as f***, especially when these units are getting thrown into the fire on a relatively regular basis. We had a woman in my WOCS class say she shouldn't be dropped for failing parts of the course because she was Guard and should be held to a lower standard. Fortunately that idiot was dropped.

I agree not all infantrymen are created equal. That said, if leading an infantry unit, some experience as a PL should at least give you some knowledge on the capabilities, challenges, etc the infantry faces. On the other hand, from a general officer level perspective, just knowing doctrinal capabilities is probably enough.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
8,565
Likes
6,294
Location
MA
But the Guard IS different. Not “bad different” or “good different,” just different. No Guard CG is ever going to deploy an organic infantry division, nor have to fight it. The job IS different.

And I, for one, would never call it a lower standard. My Guard unit was METL-capable to a fault, mostly because lack of mobility meant soldiers stayed in the job until they knew it cold.

But the bottom line is that being a CG on an active post with a daily training schedule and a defined mission is fundamentally different than being a Guard CG with your brigades scattered over half the third-biggest state in the country, where most of your Joes aren’t anywhere near full-time.
 

blindfire

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
15,584
Likes
3,961
Good write up here: Women in combat - Wikipedia

Physical concerns
The Center for Military Readiness, an organization that seeks to limit women's participation in the military, stated that “Female soldiers [are], on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance”.[63]

Motherhood accounts for 58% of hospitalizations among active-duty female troops.

A 2014-2015 experiment by the Marine Corps with a gender-integrated combat unit found that women were twice as likely to suffer injuries significant enough to remove them from duty, and that women's shooting accuracy was much less than that of men in simulated combat situations. Female soldiers were also found to have lower performance in the basic combat tasks like negotiating obstacles and removing wounded troops from the battlefield.[64][65]

The female skeletal system is less dense, and more prone to breakages.[66][67] There is also a concern that, in aviation, the female body is not as adept at handling the increased g-forces experienced by combat pilots. However, there is evidence that the male body is less able to handle the g-forces than the female body with regard to black outs: women are less likely to black out due to shorter blood vessel routes in the neck.[verification needed] Furthermore, health issues regarding women are argued as the reason that some submarine services avoid accepting women, although mixed-gender accommodations in a small space is also an issue, as is explained in more depth below.[63]

In the Austrian Armed Forces and almost all NATO countries, significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers in determining fitness for service.[68][69] The Swiss Armed Forces abolished this advantage for female soldiers in 2007.[70]
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
Very weird position for her. Shes a trained Physiologist with a MS. She also has a Expert Field Medical Badge but not a Flight Surgeon cert, so that's a little weird, I guess she didn't finish the medical portion and changed to a pilot?

I have zero problem with female flag officers. I do have problems with people in leadership positions who have zero experience in the specialty of their charge. You'd assume that a BG in an infantry division would have ~25-30 years of Infantry officer training, experience and enough strategy to make your head explode. This person has none of that. How is she to lead a division in combat against a well formed professional opposing ground force? She has no experience in it.

When the make women pass the same PT standards as the men then we can discuss. Until then its just noise.
The army took care of this for you, becuase people have been saying just what youve just did forever. The army now has 3 levels for a PT test.

Using Dench Age when I joined:
-Pass level-
Pushups - 10 [rofl]
2 Mile run - 21:07 [rofl]
Leg Tuck - 1 [rofl]
Sprint Drag: 3:35 (i'd laugh bit i ave no clue what it is and honestly dont even f***ing care this test is so retarded)
Power Throw: 4.6m
Dead lift: 140lbs 3 times [rofl]

So basically the test is a complete waste of everyones time. I believe when I joined I had to do 42 pushups in 2 minutes, which while not hard, did weed out all the out of shape people. The above numbers reflect a person who is just a normal person who doesnt even work out or exercise.

So what they did was they made a 2nd tier, "heavy MOS" i.e. combat MOSs. You have to pass that tier in order to be in a combat MOS. Theyve been very clever about how they have scored it. For an in shape male the test is still completely trivial and a waste of time. However, they made the thresholds for a pass right where the top say ~20% of athletic females would land at. A 180lbs dead lift, 18:00 2 mile, 30 pushups. All of these numbers are specifically geared around what a really in shape female can do without taking shit and working out as a career.

Now the minimum combat MOS standard only serves as an entry point for females, and not a disqualifyer for out of shape males. Because in all honestly even out of shape males should be able to pass this test without problems.

Good write up here: Women in combat - Wikipedia

Physical concerns
The Center for Military Readiness, an organization that seeks to limit women's participation in the military, stated that “Female soldiers [are], on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance”.[63]

Motherhood accounts for 58% of hospitalizations among active-duty female troops.

A 2014-2015 experiment by the Marine Corps with a gender-integrated combat unit found that women were twice as likely to suffer injuries significant enough to remove them from duty, and that women's shooting accuracy was much less than that of men in simulated combat situations. Female soldiers were also found to have lower performance in the basic combat tasks like negotiating obstacles and removing wounded troops from the battlefield.[64][65]

The female skeletal system is less dense, and more prone to breakages.[66][67] There is also a concern that, in aviation, the female body is not as adept at handling the increased g-forces experienced by combat pilots. However, there is evidence that the male body is less able to handle the g-forces than the female body with regard to black outs: women are less likely to black out due to shorter blood vessel routes in the neck.[verification needed] Furthermore, health issues regarding women are argued as the reason that some submarine services avoid accepting women, although mixed-gender accommodations in a small space is also an issue, as is explained in more depth below.[63]

In the Austrian Armed Forces and almost all NATO countries, significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers in determining fitness for service.[68][69] The Swiss Armed Forces abolished this advantage for female soldiers in 2007.[70]
How people deny a few hundred thousand years of human evolution is beyond me. Conservatives do it just as much as the liberals do with this subject, and the straight up science denial going on is amazing.

Womans bodies are not made to smash and break shit. Mens are. It's a VERY simple premise.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
776
Likes
1,406
Location
North Woodstock NH
IDF Admits Problems with Women in Combat



Surprise, surprise: female combat soldiers suffer injuries during training at twice the rate of males.



Gil Ronen, 30/07/15 22:33



After at least 15 years of hyping the idea of women in combat units, the IDF is admitting that women suffer injuries at a much higher rate than men during combat training – despite the fact that training requirements for women in combat are considerably less demanding than for men.



According to a report in the IDF's Bamahane magazine, a large scale study was conducted among female combat soldiers in the Karakal infantry unit, the Artillery Corps and the Field Intelligence Corps, between the years 2012-13.



The study indicated that a full 46% of the female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial period of training, as opposed to 25% among the men. One third of the women in the study were injured more than once.



The injuries included torn ligaments, sprains, knee pain, back pain and stress fractures. The latter were much more common in women, afflicting only 2% of men but 8% of the women. “Most stress fractures appear in weeks 4-6 of the training period, and mainly in the field and warfare weeks,” an officer explained to Bamahane.



"The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, and that is why they suffer more injuries,” said the officer. “The fat percentage in women is 70% to 100% greater than men's and that is why they are slower than them, and consume more energy during activity. At the same time, their muscle density is 33% less than the men's and their ability to carry weights is lower.”



The study found that the injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal is 40%, and in the Artillery Corps it reaches a whopping 70%. Knee pain among female combat soldiers is three times more common than among males, and tears in knee ligaments are also more common in women.

Women drop out of the combat track for medical reasons at rates that are 2 to 5 times those of men's.



Despite all this evidence, the IDF is making an effort to combat physiological nature and reduce women's injury rates. This is being done because of a recent decision to double the number of women in combat, in order to try and make up for the shortage in men, whose period of service has been rather inexplicably shortened, from 36 months to just 32.

Starting in November of 2015, therefore, every female combat soldier will undergo medical examinations and blood tests before she enlists, rather than afterward. How this will reduce injury rates is not clear from the report.



The IDF will also change the training exercises and diet to “fit” them to women. Presumably, training for women will be made even less demanding than it is now."



IDF Admits Problems with Women in Combat
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
776
Likes
1,406
Location
North Woodstock NH
Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.

The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.64930098d6a3
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
I wonder what drives the accuracy issue? I get the rest, that’s just physiology
It's probably along the lines of what the male human body evolved into. A hunter warrior. Scanning for threats, identifying, keeping track of are all things that would be needed to be enhanced for the role.

Since females would of only been doing the above in situations where there were either no males or the males needed help they didn't develop down that path and instead have benefits in areas they practiced back in the good ol' days.

Strength is going to carry over into weapons systems larger than a pistol or rifle, also. The M203 is an absolute bitch recoil wise (its about a 12ga with 00 or 000 buck) and the problem being the ergonomics of it blow. I have no idea how the M320 is, I'd hope better.

The M27 is going to be a recoil pig for small people. Why it's even a thing is a mystery for the ages.

And then the larger stuff, M249s, M240G, M2's, MK.19's, etc. All this shit is heavy. When its used in a mounted position yes it's very easy, but when you get the SAW or 240 out and have to drag it around all day people who arent in shape are going to be worn down by it, which is going to lessen the weapon effectiveness.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,021
Likes
4,629
Location
Granite State of Mind
General officers are general. They don't have branch assignments like O-1 to O-6.

That said, it's traditional that they be experienced in the branch that they command, just like you wouldn't expect someone whose entire management experience is electronic engineering to make a good fast food CEO.

At the same time: yes, Guard generals don't command active duty combat units. They make sure that Army training standards are met by the soldiers who will be activated and sent to combat under an active duty command.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
General officers are general.
"General" when used in the context of military ranks does not have a relationship to the English world "general" that we all use every day. [rofl]

tldr: it's the next step up from field grade officers. it's not "oh he/shes a soldier so they generally have an idea of what theyre doing, ergo general officer."
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,021
Likes
4,629
Location
Granite State of Mind
"General" when used in the context of military ranks does not have a relationship to the English world "general" that we all use every day. [rofl]
Except that's exactly what it used to mean.

tldr: it's the next step up from field grade officers.
Gee, if only I had ever been an Army officer, I would know that.

Oh, wait...
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
Very weird position for her. Shes a trained Physiologist with a MS. She also has a Expert Field Medical Badge but not a Flight Surgeon cert, so that's a little weird, I guess she didn't finish the medical portion and changed to a pilot?

I have zero problem with female flag officers. I do have problems with people in leadership positions who have zero experience in the specialty of their charge. You'd assume that a BG in an infantry division would have ~25-30 years of Infantry officer training, experience and enough strategy to make your head explode. This person has none of that. How is she to lead a division in combat against a well formed professional opposing ground force? She has no experience in it.



The army took care of this for you, becuase people have been saying just what youve just did forever. The army now has 3 levels for a PT test.

Using Dench Age when I joined:
-Pass level-
Pushups - 10 [rofl]
2 Mile run - 21:07 [rofl]
Leg Tuck - 1 [rofl]
Sprint Drag: 3:35 (i'd laugh bit i ave no clue what it is and honestly dont even f***ing care this test is so retarded)
Power Throw: 4.6m
Dead lift: 140lbs 3 times [rofl]

So basically the test is a complete waste of everyones time. I believe when I joined I had to do 42 pushups in 2 minutes, which while not hard, did weed out all the out of shape people. The above numbers reflect a person who is just a normal person who doesnt even work out or exercise.

So what they did was they made a 2nd tier, "heavy MOS" i.e. combat MOSs. You have to pass that tier in order to be in a combat MOS. Theyve been very clever about how they have scored it. For an in shape male the test is still completely trivial and a waste of time. However, they made the thresholds for a pass right where the top say ~20% of athletic females would land at. A 180lbs dead lift, 18:00 2 mile, 30 pushups. All of these numbers are specifically geared around what a really in shape female can do without taking shit and working out as a career.

Now the minimum combat MOS standard only serves as an entry point for females, and not a disqualifyer for out of shape males. Because in all honestly even out of shape males should be able to pass this test without problems.



How people deny a few hundred thousand years of human evolution is beyond me. Conservatives do it just as much as the liberals do with this subject, and the straight up science denial going on is amazing.

Womans bodies are not made to smash and break shit. Mens are. It's a VERY simple premise.
There are a handful of issues with the ACFT... Primarily it's a logistical bitch even if the Army wants to pretend it's not. That said, it is more physically difficult than the APFT, and women and older soldiers are disadvantaged when compared to the APFT.

The whole women in the infantry argument to me is dumb. The numbers since it has been permitted bear out that very few women want to go into combat arms. Of those who do, they are self-selecting and will probably be better than the a good chunk of the dudes who played too much call of duty physically, and towards the top as far as drive and mental capacity goes.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,161
Likes
6,669
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
I wonder what drives the accuracy issue? I get the rest, that’s just physiology
Given the number of female Israeli and Russian snipers with large numbers of confirmed kills I think it has more to do with movement under stress compared to accuracy from a prepared position after stealthily slinking about. Women are more ambush predators like cats. While men are more pursuit predators like dogs.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
Could just be the stress of knowing the microscope is on them effecting performance. Could be a lot of factors... that said, men tend to shoot better overall in my experience in the military. That may be because a larger proportion of them have some marksmanship background and/or continue to shoot as a hobby. The military is awful with one on one coaching as well. When I taught civilians it was a pretty even mix, though physical strength definitely impacts endurance when not prone or at a bench.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
Of those who do, they are self-selecting and will probably be better than the a good chunk of the dudes who played too much call of duty physically, and towards the top as far as drive and mental capacity goes.
Better how?

The new PT test is much harder to max but significantly easier to pass.

Except that's exactly what it used to mean.


Gee, if only I had ever been an Army officer, I would know that.

Oh, wait...
General meant that a higher ranked officer was in charge of a large jurisdiction. If we need to do mental gymnastics and say "he was generally in charge of this area," then yes, you are correct.

When I think of a 4 Star I dont think "well, hes generally in charge of XX Division" because I speak English like a normal human.

But Womens rights. And shes going to be generally ok running a group of people generally composing of soldiers and going to lead them to victory using general skills, such as leadership, professionalism and pride of country. Some say her command is generally geographically centered around the state of CA, which is generally a liberal state. Generally, people from CA vote (D). Also, people who command infanty divisions generally have experience in infantry arms. But since shes a general, some say shes generally qualified for the position.

I'd also like to thank you for your general service to the country.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
Better how?

The new PT test is much harder to max but significantly easier to pass.
The APFT as it stands is a joke. The ACFT is dumb for many many reasons, but the "hard" category is harder to pass than the apft, especially for women, smaller, and older soldiers. That is the category that applies to combat arms among other jobs.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
The APFT as it stands is a joke. The ACFT is dumb for many many reasons, but the "hard" category is harder to pass than the apft, especially for women, smaller, and older soldiers. That is the category that applies to combat arms among other jobs.
The Heavy portion of the MOS is only hard to pass for females. The heavy MOS portion pushup wise doesn't become more difficult to a male scoring wise till that soldier is in there late 40's. For the run it's early 40's. In reality if a soldier cant run 2 miles in under 18 minutes or do 30 pushups they have no business being in a combat MOS regardless of age or gender.

The heavy MOS scoring is a strategically chosen series of numbers that allows say the top ~10% of very athletic females to pass. Nearly every able bodied male should be able to pass the minimum heavy standard whos only put minimal preparation into it.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
I am still in confusion, is it like this. well, agree the work has to do by other staff.
Hello, I'm Dench and I'm here to help.

The only thing more confusing than flag officers is warrant officers.

Anywho, I am going to go through the major US Army commands, what the specialty is and what the boss mans/womans background is. We are using Army since it's the only branch that matters.

United States Army Nurse Corps - Medical - MG Jimmie O. Keenan (Female) = Nurse
Army Medical Department (United States) - Medical - LTG Nadja West (Female, minority) = Dermatologist
United States Army Intelligence and Security Command - Intel - MG Gary Johnston = MI officer
United States Army Corps of Engineers - Engineering - LTG Todd T. Semonite = Civil Engineer
United States Army Provost Marshal General - Giving out tickets for going 7mph in a 5 -
MG David P. Glaser = MP Officer

I chose those randomly. lets look at werid commands:


Ordnance Corps (United States Army) - Gunz & ammo - BG Heidi J. Hoyle (female) = Ordinance/EOD Officer

United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command - Civil Affiars/Psyops - MG Darrell J. Guthrie = Started as artillery, changed to civil affairs early/mid career

Ok lets try the national guard divisions I was in

29th Infantry Division - infantry - MG John M. Epperly - Infantry officer
42nd Infantry Division - infantry - MG Steven Ferrari - Infantry officer

Shit. Ok lets try large installations and see if the commanders have anything in common with whats being taught

Fort Leonard Wood - MP, Engineer, Chemical - MG Donna Martin (female, minority) = MP officer
Fort Benning - Infantry - MG Gary M. Brito = Infantry officer
Fort Sill - Artillery - MG Wilson A. Shoffner = Artillery Officer


The above is the ones I found and I entered it in as I found. I didn't skip or hide any. I'm sure there are some other examples of flag officers in positions that have zero in common with what they are commanding, but thats the exception not the norm.

So is a person in charge of a division who has little/zero experience in said divisions task a common thing? No.

Also worth pointing out that there are many female flag officers and many minority ones. It's not like being black woman MG is even news worthy - shes just simply qualified for the job. What is news worthy is a person whos the boss who has no background in what the are in charge of. It's dumb.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
The Heavy portion of the MOS is only hard to pass for females. The heavy MOS portion pushup wise doesn't become more difficult to a male scoring wise till that soldier is in there late 40's. For the run it's early 40's. In reality if a soldier cant run 2 miles in under 18 minutes or do 30 pushups they have no business being in a combat MOS regardless of age or gender.

The heavy MOS scoring is a strategically chosen series of numbers that allows say the top ~10% of very athletic females to pass. Nearly every able bodied male should be able to pass the minimum heavy standard whos only put minimal preparation into it.
The ACFT is not some incredibly hard test, but I stand by it being more difficult to pass (heavy) than the existing APFT. Both are easy to pass, but the ACFT (heavy) is absolutely more difficult than the APFT.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,208
Likes
4,783
The ACFT is not some incredibly hard test, but I stand by it being more difficult to pass (heavy) than the existing APFT. Both are easy to pass, but the ACFT (heavy) is absolutely more difficult than the APFT.
The numbers are right in front of you. If you think the heavy portion of the test is harder than you dont understand what your looking at.


The new PT test is significantly harder to max. It might even be impossible for a large amount of people due to physical limitations. The old PT test was difficult to max but was a common occurrence.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,797
Likes
2,977
Location
Green Eggs and...
I've run through both man I just got out of a TRADOC school. Individually, the events aren't difficult (though some are certainly going to be harder for some populations than the current age/gender scaled APFT), stack them all up in 55 minutes and they are certainly more of a workout than the easy APFT.We didn't even do the full ACFT in the imposed time limit. From what we were briefed, so far NOBODY army-wide has been able to max the hand release pushups, so final numbers will be modified.

The ACFT is a f***ing nightmare to implement though.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
826
Likes
697
Location
Metro Atlanta
I've run through both man I just got out of a TRADOC school. Individually, the events aren't difficult (though some are certainly going to be harder for some populations than the current age/gender scaled APFT), stack them all up in 55 minutes and they are certainly more of a workout than the easy APFT.We didn't even do the full ACFT in the imposed time limit. From what we were briefed, so far NOBODY army-wide has been able to max the hand release pushups, so final numbers will be modified.

The ACFT is a f***ing nightmare to implement though.
I think you replied to a different thread
 
Top Bottom