That's essentially what we have, it's just the "fat specialists" are referred to as civilian and contractor DoD employees.

I think the physical requirements are more about having soldiers with a certain level of discipline wrt fitness.

Assuming they both meet the baseline minimum for what is needed on the job, there is a reasonable argument to have a relatively fit 35 year old be a better candidate than an average 25 year old even if in absolute terms the 25 year old can put up better numbers in an exercise drill. It can be deduced that the 35 year old is disciplined.

This doesn't exist though, does it? There's a bar that rises and falls depending on your age/gender, and not a concrete one indicating what the "baseline minimum" is.

DiB - take a silly example.

Let's say Patton was still alive today and retained a sharp mind even though his 130(?) year old body was barely capable of moving.

Would it be valuable to have him in the army even though he couldn't pass any sort of physical requirement - absolutely. Would it make sense to have an army of only 130 year old military geniuses - absolutely not.

But as it stands, a 67 year old military mastermind with limited physical capabilities isn't passing muster unless he can do X push ups.

I'm not sure that's true (I would bet at that age/rank there are exemptions).

But having general age/gender categories (with I assume some amount of medical exemptions) seems like a good balance between trading off the value of a diverse army and excessive bureaucracy trying to figure out what each person's individual fitness requirement should be.

Well, yes it does. It's whatever the minimum requirements for the oldest demographic is.

The APFT is just a baseline and isn't really a good show of actual fitness and strength but it does provide a base line. You can see who is generally in shape and who is not. There always be outliers like big dudes who can ruck forever carrying 100lbs of **** but can barely pass the run. The minimum standards are all pretty similar, esspeically under 31 but the maximums are different. Also, out of 300, a 180 is passing but in infantry units if you don't have a 270 or higher you have failed in the eyes of your leaders. Some schools or selections have a minimum of 240 or higher.

The entry APFT is a joke. I came in 5 years ago as an 18x, special forces candidate, and my recruiter just asked me what I thought I could do. I never actually did one for him.

I'm not even sure what this thread is about or the argument is but lol at civilians trying to understand unless they've gone on 12+ mile rucks with heavy ass rucks or long ass patrols in full kit in Afghanistan in the summer or selection or ranger school. Once you go through some of that stuff, you'll understand why the army needs these standards.

One of the most annoying things I hear is the Army is not a job, it's a lifestyle. And it's true. It can't be compared to any other job.

If anything the Army needs stricter standards. You can't have a bunch of fat lazy support soldiers. Everybody needs to be able to fight. Truck drivers still get in firefights, cooks jump out of airplanes, just because someone isn't infantry doesn't mean they don't do some sort of combat training and need to be ready to fight shoot, move and communicate in order to kill the enemy.

Have we even touched on the height and weight standards?

So you're just dropping in to give your shpeal? Not gonna read?

"IDK what this thread is about, I haven't read ****, but lol at civilians...!" GTFO.

Of course I read the thread. In fact I read it while I was 20 hours into a 24 hour staff duty shift. I don't really understand what the argument is. Normally when soldiers talk about this subject it's how do we make it more applicable to combat or if we should raise the standards because there are too many fat bodies in the army. Not let's just get rid of the whole pt test.

Ok, so where does this come from...


...considering the OP?

Like, seems pretty clear, but maybe not.

FWIW, I'm at the point now where I think an unconditional (very low) standard should be set for entry; like, the absolute slowest/weakest standard to ensure everyone can be at least moderately effective grunts. From there, let specialist roles have increased standards based on the needs of the position.

the standards are "very" low.

The "standards" are "conditional" on "age"/gender.

thats right. i would prefer equal standards for both genders too, but aint happen.