all jokes aside , if your not physicaly fit, you should not be wearing a military uniform. Being in a REAL military organization means having the dicipline to remain physicaly fit. Anyone who is more that 5% over weight should never be seen in a uniform unless it is due to muscle mass. Lets face it, if your overweight and out of shape then you are only PLAYING army.
The SDF I belong to is so overly concerned with having a worker's comp claim that even basic PT is frowned upon. The closest most guys get to PT is some occasional D&C.
boggsalan is not talking about PT on SDF time. He is voicing a concern about height/weight and the wear of the uniform. While I am in favor of a more liberal (10-15%) increase over active standards, I also have concerns about how mission capable a 280 lb. 5'6" person really is. I would also add some pounds for our older members. Alabama does not currently have any weight standards.
The army already has physical fitness standards from the ages of 17 to 62+. I believe part of the deal with serving is being in shape at least enough to carry through with the mission at hand. second but equally as important is presenting ourselves to the legislator and citizens of our respective states as capable, able and professional soldiers. Yes it is true that we no longer are in Federal service, most cases don't carry weapons and are more on the admin and support side of the mission. What this means is that if we want to be taken as a serious asset, we have to demonstrate that we CAN be relied on, that we CAN DO the mission that we ARE professional, that we ARE the right organization to carry out the mission. That we ARE more CAPABLE and ABLE than federal or national guard troops. All of this starts with presentation and an image. Just something to think about..you don't see to many overweight soldiers and they are the ones we rely on to keep us from harm. The APFT is what I measure myself by and hold myself to. Out.
The APFT is what I measure myself by and hold myself to.
There are valid arguments that the APFT is a poor measure of the ablilty of active soldiers to execute their missions. How many SDF missions are based on the ablilty of the member to run 2 miles in less than 20 minutes (60% for 62+)? The ugly head of libility rears up if you plan a PT test during a SDF traing activity.
BUT... the worse offenders would be eased into "retirement" by requiring SOME standard of height/weight. (181 lb for 68" and over 40). Again, I would add some additional pounds (5-10%) and a bracket for over 50 and over 60 years. The NY State Guard has a very reasonable plan. http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nygd/1308.pdf
WES_3Be, Thanks for the link, I read the plan and I agree that it is reasonable. I agree that it is very unlikely that any mission will have SDF soldiers running for 2 miles. I believe that issues of liability can be overcome. Couldn't training be done off drill time as well as a PT test? My intent was to state that we need to be in shape to be able to perform any mission that is assigned to us. The APFT is a great starting point also along with the height/weight reqs. If you don't measure yourself to something, it just a slow down hill spiral. I believe that tying in a physical test to promotion and retention would keep our leadership lean and mean. Not slow and rotund. The image of 4F fat boys is something SDF's need to shake off. I still believe we need to present ourselves not equal but better and more able than our federal brothers and sisters.
I feel I should admit that there are soldiers in the National Guard who are not in shape, but they are "flagged" on the promotion list for whatever is the problem (wieght, failed APFT, weapons qual, education) and are ineligible for promotion.
I also want to reiterate something I think I have expressed in other posts, A older soldier, one who isnt in the physical condition he used to be, who has the experience and skills needed to train new recruits and young soldiers has a place in the SDF, he is a valuable resource not to be shoved aside... BUT he needs to be aware of his limitations.. He/she should also do what they can to get in shape to set the proper example. I have had some very good leaders within the OHMR and learned alot from them, if they are reading this I just want to thank them because lessons I learned from them helped carry me through my deployment to Mosul Iraq. The modern combat load of a foot soldier is close to 120lbs, carry that for 12 hours in 100 degree weather and running 2 miles in shorts and a Tshirt will be a laugh. Its not about being able to run 2 miles... its about testing your physical endurance.. 2 miles isnt even a good start to what you endure in war.
I for one am encouraged to see some discussion on the topic of a soldier's appearance. I agree with the comments that a soldier needs to look like a soldier if he's to be taken seriously. I was just at the armory today, and seeing 25 year old Guardsmen (half my age) that look like they should be in a rap video is disheartening.
I am also encourage to see soldiers to be brave and fit. To keep fit they need to exercise and meditate.This help to live long life. ======================== casseysmith
Originally posted by boggsalan: all jokes aside , if your not physicaly fit, you should not be wearing a military uniform. Being in a REAL military organization means having the dicipline to remain physicaly fit. Anyone who is more that 5% over weight should never be seen in a uniform unless it is due to muscle mass. Lets face it, if your overweight and out of shape then you are only PLAYING army.
What about all the IRR peeps that are being called back? Some of those guys can't even see their shoes.
"Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on after others have let go." -- William Feather
Just to be very honest here, I'm in the Texas State Guard and am in no way over-weight. I'm 6'4" and 195 lbs. I'm not fit. So, fat guts aren't the only measure of unfitness.
I do agree that we should be fit, but how fit do you need to be to park cars or man an evacuation shelter?
Seems like we are concerned with appearance of fitness, and with that aspect I agree. Overweight troops do not exude military competance or readiness.
No, you need not be 'fit' to carry out these duties.
But you're missing the point.
The military is about discipline, self-control and bearing. You may not NEED to be in shape to park cars, but you should WANT to be in shape to wear your state's uniform, and park cars.
This is one of the biggest obstacles faced by SDF recruiters. You have a non-paid volunteer force, and are therefore forced to take those willing to play military but unwilling to do the work required to look military.
I am prior federal service and considering an SDF billet while simultaneously submitting a package for a federal commission. I'm in my early forties and in superior shape because I work VERY hard to stay that way.
IMO, anyone wearing a uniform should take pride in themselves first, which will then reflect ten fold in BDUs.
Fat-bodies are the worst possible recruiting message for any military organization.
Don't get me wrong. I'm also prior active duty federal military (USAF). I thought my last statement on the subject would convey my real feelings on the subject. I agree that discipline is the key to every good thing in life.
But, we're not only not paid very often, although the TXSG is getting much better. (I've actually been paid for training, mileage, per diem, etc. on occasion), but we actually have to pay to volunteer, in many ways, to belong to our SDF units. Modern military stuff ain't cheap, plus we have our hands tied in so many ways to gain federal surplus and to fund-raise, so we do attract many of those that could not be accepted into federal military service.
BTW, Manicman, any SDF could use some positive enthusiasm, and I encourage you to join, and work to make things better from within your unit. Things in a SDF are rarely what you want, but those of us that are sticking with it are trying to make positive changes from within our organizations. Come to Texas...we'll put you to work.
You all are getting on a soapbox saying that obese soldiers make the SDF look unprepared and unprofessional. You all say soldiers should look and act as fit as possible. But, what about the vets who are overweight now and they are in their 50s and 60s. They oftentimes wear their uniforms and have them let out so that they can participate in various veterans parades and military balls.
How about we put them in the lardass unit that the idiot mentioned earlier. Having questions about weight standards is one thing. Embarassing yourself on a message board by suggesting that VOLUNTEER state soldiers should be in a lardass unit is completely another. What a joke.
Since I see there is recent trafic in this thread I guess I will chime in again.
I think that as far as SDF's go instead of a "fat boy" platoon there should be a "quick response" platoon, made up of soldiers who have the dicipline and drive to not only be in physical condition to conduct missions but also the training. This unit would be a desireable assignment since it would be given the missions that would put them in the public eye. There are "fat bodies" , non weapon qualified, failed PT tests ect...in every branch of the uniformed services and they are penalized through ineligiblity to be promoted.
