I am thinking of re-enlisting in the Army and I was wondering if I would be able to pass the Pt test and training with a knee with torn cartlidge and a torn ACL. How hard is the training physicaly on the older guys, 40 and over.

quote:

Originally posted by 16557972:
I am thinking of re-enlisting in the Army and I was wondering if I would be able to pass the Pt test and training with a knee with torn cartlidge and a torn ACL. How hard is the training physicaly on the older guys, 40 and over.

hard, you may notpass the MEPS physical.

do not try it! the ruck marches will hurt and the 3.5 mile runs will screw you up and end up in FOX Battery until a decision is made what to do with you...

HARD? Now that's a joke.

PT in WTC is shameful. NinjaDrill must be a Drill SGT there cause I don't know a soul that would say their PT is easy. I went thru WTC (aka WTF) last year and I had harder workouts in kindergarten out in the sandbox.

Now about the question about your injury. I personally don't like to have older soldiers with preexisting injury's and then obtain a Permanent profile to sham the rest of their enlistment while the rest of us pull their weight. The standard in the Army is already low enough without all the old timers coming back on active duty cause they cant find a job because of the crappy economy.

My Suggestion is not to come back if you cant physically run 5 miles and do 60 pushups and situps. This is wartime bro, peacetime is for the fatboys and profiles

do you run 5 miles at WTC? I can, at an average of about a 9min mile.

Physically I think I'm ready. I don't ship till mid april. Right now I'm doing the APFT with a score in the 270+ range (age 42). I'm hoping to get my run down to 14 min by april. I'm currently running at 7 1/2 min mile pace for the 2 miles. I've been running intervals as fast as 6 1/2 min pace for an 1/8 mile at a time.

quote:

Originally posted by mike_4433:
do you run 5 miles at WTC? I can, at an average of about a 9min mile.

Physically I think I'm ready. I don't ship till mid april. Right now I'm doing the APFT with a score in the 270+ range (age 42). I'm hoping to get my run down to 14 min by april. I'm currently running at 7 1/2 min mile pace for the 2 miles. I've been running intervals as fast as 6 1/2 min pace for an 1/8 mile at a time.

I remember running about 3 miles consistently at WTC. I mentioned the 5 miles because after you get away from WTC and your MOS training you will most likely be deployed. My pet peeve is older soldiers coming back in whom are in bad shape and using their age as an excuse for poor physical condition. After you get on them a few times they run to sick call and get profiles. We affectionately call then soldiers Sick-Call Rangers. I am an older soldier who cam back in as an E4 (Formally E5) at 35 years of age. It was a struggle but I worked hard and got my self to standard before I shipped off to WTC. I pride myself in scoring higher than a majority of the younger soldiers, even on their scale! Despite my age and physical condition and the 11 years of a fat and happy civilian I managed to score 80% across the board.

The PT is not hard for some one who is in shape and takes pride in their physical condition. It is hard to the fat boys that want to get by and rake in a paycheck every month for sub-par output. Personally, Its a disgrace to the uniform and it embarrasses me to wear the same uniform as these poor excuses for soldiers.

That being said, you should like your in good shape and will probably score really high on the PT Tests. Id even go as far as to say you are in better shape that some of the Fatboy Drills if not most.

Good Luck and Gods Speed

quote:

Originally posted by Route-Step:
HARD? Now that's a joke.

PT in WTC is shameful. NinjaDrill must be a Drill SGT there cause I don't know a soul that would say their PT is easy. I went thru WTC (aka WTF) last year and I had harder workouts in kindergarten out in the sandbox.

Now about the question about your injury. I personally don't like to have older soldiers with preexisting injury's and then obtain a Permanent profile to sham the rest of their enlistment while the rest of us pull their weight. The standard in the Army is already low enough without all the old timers coming back on active duty cause they cant find a job because of the crappy economy.

My Suggestion is not to come back if you cant physically run 5 miles and do 60 pushups and situps. This is wartime bro, peacetime is for the fatboys and profiles

Pretty full of yourself, aren't you?

Since you are acting like a little punk let me explain to you what Ninjadrill is talking about. He is telling the man the same thing you are, only in a respectful manner. Maybe you should take note? You are flat out disrespectful and insulting to those who served before you, and likely longer than you as well. You shame yourself and the uniform with your disrespect.

Saying that, YES it will be very hard on this man with a bum knee. Maybe it is not hard for supertroopers like Specialist Route-Step here, but for a 40 year old with a prior torn ACL, probably better off not doing it.

Edit: Your last reply was much better, I will not change my first reply though, in your first post you were very disrespectful.

Exactly my point! You say I'm acting like a little punk for holding to a higher standard than par. If that makes me a little punk then your right! I can tell that I came in the Army when there were higher standards and they were expected to be met. You obviously came in around 2000 or later or just have poor standards. otherwise why all the excuses for soldiers who can not meet the standards or for borderline handicaps coming back on active duty?

If you knew me either in my prior service time (93-97) or current (2008-current) you would know that I will say it how it is no matter who you are or what rank you wear. You might take it as disrespect but its not meant that way. I am bold and if I hurt your feelings then you should join the Boy Scout Troop there. The Army has been criticized for being the "New Army" or the "Relaxed Army" because of low standards and loss of military bearing. In part I blame that on softy NCO's and others who make excuses for a substandard soldier or who lead from the rear and enforce the "do as I say not as I do" leadership model.

So next time don't take my blunt honesty for disrespect. Thanks for your understanding

I also don't see how answering a guys question, whether it was harsh or not, takes this thread off topic and turns it personal. I simply stated my opinion which obviously differs from yours.

I don't feel like getting into a post war so lets just agree to disagree and move on.

After reading your profile and seeing that you were not a soldier but an Airman I realize the disconnect. The Air Force is a different animal all together and their standards are a lack of..... no pun or disrespect intended

quote:

Originally posted by Route-Step:
Exactly my point! You say I'm acting like a little punk for holding to a higher standard than par. If that makes me a little punk then your right! I can tell that I came in the Army when there were higher standards and they were expected to be met. You obviously came in around 2000 or later or just have poor standards. otherwise why all the excuses for soldiers who can not meet the standards or for borderline handicaps coming back on active duty?

If you knew me either in my prior service time (93-97) or current (2008-current) you would know that I will say it how it is no matter who you are or what rank you wear. You might take it as disrespect but its not meant that way. I am bold and if I hurt your feelings then you should join the Boy Scout Troop there. The Army has been criticized for being the "New Army" or the "Relaxed Army" because of low standards and loss of military bearing. In part I blame that on softy NCO's and others who make excuses for a substandard soldier or who lead from the rear and enforce the "do as I say not as I do" leadership model.

So next time don't take my blunt honesty for disrespect. Thanks for your understanding

I also don't see how answering a guys question, whether it was harsh or not, takes this thread off topic and turns it personal. I simply stated my opinion which obviously differs from yours.

I don't feel like getting into a post war so lets just agree to disagree and move on.

After reading your profile and seeing that you were not a soldier but an Airman I realize the disconnect. The Air Force is a different animal all together and their standards are a lack of..... no pun or disrespect intended

In my opinion you were disrespectful, whether your intention or not. I will take your word for it that it was not your intention and will move on.

Saying that, read a little closer. I was an active Army 19D from 89-93 and served in the first Gulf War. You are correct about the Air Force, I am proud to serve with them nonetheless.

Route-Step, I understand the heartache you go thru. But This is not the Army that it was back in the 80's. The Army has evolved.....whether for the good or the bad of the service, who knows. As each generation changes the Army has changed. The Standards has changed also. If they did not, there would be no WTC program. As you will find out 'tact' will go a long way. You pride yourself in telling it like it is no matter who they are or what rank they are. You probably do but you utilize TACT when talking to the CSM or the BN Cdr. As I said before, I wish you success in your renewed career.

The Army has evolved in reverse. Leader's that make excuses for this de-evolution do so because they had poor leaders who, instilled poor standards thus the reverse evolution. Not all Army leaders have this issue and a lot of my leadership has been quite good to this point.

The Leadership that I had in Ft Sill while attending the WTC Program was extremely poor starting at the 1SG and rolling on down. Seemed to me that all the Drill Sgts who had a chip on their shoulder were sent to the WTC Program. Maybe it was because the fact that they were told to remove their Round Browns and wear a Patrol Cap or maybe it was a number of reasons but poor leadership nonetheless. I realize that it is a TRADOC unit and those rules apply but the "Drill Sergeant" is meant to be the best of the best. I can still remember my Drills from Basic Training way back in the early 90's and even to this day I remember them as gods in the Army uniform. They were proficient, stern, fair, compassionate, hardcore, and professional at all times when interacting with us. They taught us to love the army even though we might not understand everything about it yet. They were bold and stern with us because it was their jobs and not because they had fun "F@cking with soldiers because they could. My experience at the Ft Sill WTC Program was good because I meet some good people whom I will serve with proudly. The training that we received was insufficient to say the least.

I don't believe the program has all the faults or the reason that the program was a waste, I see it as the leadership conducting the training failing their soldiers.

To conclude, I will say that all good leaders like to and should conduct an After Action Review (AAR)to receive feedback that could assist them in either improving the training in some way or to comment on a job well done. Take my response in such a constructive criticism from a soldier who went thru your program.

Lastly, I must have tact when talking to leaders whom have quality abilities in leadership because my leadership appreciates my boldness even though they might not like the content or a subordinate making corrections but also they respect my military and life experience enough to respect my points of view and realize that all my focus is on the successful completion of our missions. I was an NCO in my prior enlistment and just because I have an eleven year break in service doesn't mean I forgot how to lead soldiers or recognize poor leadership.

O.K. So why didn't you just say that to begin with instead of sounding like an undisciplined little brat?

quote:

Route-Step:

Just curious, what Regular Army units did you serve with on your first enlistment?

Was it entirely Airborne Corps or is that a recent picture in your profile?

82nd and 18th

quote:

Originally posted by Route-Step:
82nd and 18th

OK, well (not sure what units your with now) the RA units in the larger Army run a little differently then Airborne Corps. I didn't realize it until I got to the 101st in 1986. It was like a vacation at the 101st compared to 2AD (it was like I was freed from Serfdom).

The NCO's were a lot better quality as well at the 101st, the duty hours were substantially less at the 101st, training was a LOT better, etc. I'm sure the same was true of the 82nd at that time. It's still true in 2009, IMO. I know one of the 1st Cav GWOT Vets was telling the difference in how 1st Cav operates in relation to other Infantry units he has been in.

We had some issues with the 82nd (Grenada Vets) and other Airborne NCO's arriving at 2AD in 1984-85 with adjusting to how that unit operated (most of them thought it sucked). It was just a different philosophy of operating with different rules.

So your past view might be partly because you were entirely Airborne Corps through your first enlistment. Just suggesting it as a possible explanation.

Leadership is leadership plain and simple. Completing the mission and taking care of soldiers is the same in every unit. I deployed now and I am attached to the 101st here in Afghanistan. Every unit has their quirks (formed by senior leadership)and that's just the way it goes. Inherent in the roll of units that deal with a higher risk comes there necessity to feel superior to other non-risky units. I have been there and done that and truth be known its not reality. The Airborne is not superior to the non-airborne just a bit more insane in my opinion. It was a nice experience to jump out of planes but its not elite in anyway shape or form.

My favorite memory since I have been here in Afghanistan was when a SGT from the 82nd and I were talking over a cup of coffee. He started bragging about the history of his unit and how world renowned they were and they only took the best soldiers for airborne duty. I let him go on and feel as if here was impressing me. After he was done I let him know that when he was in Junior High School I was serving in the 82nd and that I didn't needs a lesson about how high speed they were because I knew the truth.

Point of my story is where ever you go every unit is going to boast about their history and how great they are. That's just human. Now some leaders take their units history and apply it to themselves and try to place themselves on a higher pedestal than there peers. They are usually the same ones who have poor leadership skills and the ones who are the first to drop dimes or throw peers and subordinates under the bus to cover themselves.

So your view of NCO's being of better quality in the 101st is not inherent of the unit just a good time for the unit in which you were assigned or senior leadership that held the NCO's accountable for being a leader.

I have the rare experience of having a break in service although it is becoming less rare. I grew through the rank of SGT during my first enlistment then got out and worked my way up through management in a high-tech company from the Silicon Valley. In 2008, I reenlisted and now am in a unit deployed in Afghanistan. I think I have a fare amount of experience to make an analysis, at least more so than soldiers who don't have the benefit of being in the active army, on and off, over the past 3 decades.

are you Artillery now?

quote:

Originally posted by ninjadrill:
are you Artillery now?

no no no silly rabbit. Im to old for that young mans job

quote:

Originally posted by Route-Step:
Leadership is leadership plain and simple. Completing the mission and taking care of soldiers is the same in every unit. I deployed now and I am attached to the 101st here in Afghanistan. Every unit has their quirks (formed by senior leadership)and that's just the way it goes. Inherent in the roll of units that deal with a higher risk comes there necessity to feel superior to other non-risky units. I have been there and done that and truth be known its not reality. The Airborne is not superior to the non-airborne just a bit more insane in my opinion. It was a nice experience to jump out of planes but its not elite in anyway shape or form.

I knew this already.

quote:

My favorite memory since I have been here in Afghanistan was when a SGT from the 82nd and I were talking over a cup of coffee. He started bragging about the history of his unit and how world renowned they were and they only took the best soldiers for airborne duty. I let him go on and feel as if here was impressing me. After he was done I let him know that when he was in Junior High School I was serving in the 82nd and that I didn't needs a lesson about how high speed they were because I knew the truth.

I agree with you here and this happens on this website with members and former members of the 82nd. Also, by the second jump, not too much of a thrill and you don't feel it as such a large risk. I jumped post-Army though and it wasn't from a Military aircraft. Not exactly the same but close enough.

quote:

Now some leaders take their units history and apply it to themselves and try to place themselves on a higher pedestal than there peers. They are usually the same ones who have poor leadership skills and the ones who are the first to drop dimes or throw peers and subordinates under the bus to cover themselves.

I never saw that behavior, frankly and if I did I would have taken action on it.

quote:

So your view of NCO's being of better quality in the 101st is not inherent of the unit just a good time for the unit in which you were assigned or senior leadership that held the NCO's accountable for being a leader.

It was inherent in the unit partly, one was Light Infantry and the other was Mech Infantry there is a DIFFERENCE in how they operate and what each requires of a member and that is part of the point I was trying to make.

quote:

I have the rare experience of having a break in service although it is becoming less rare. I grew through the rank of SGT during my first enlistment then got out and worked my way up through management in a high-tech company from the Silicon Valley. In 2008, I reenlisted and now am in a unit deployed in Afghanistan. I think I have a fare amount of experience to make an analysis, at least more so than soldiers who don't have the benefit of being in the active army, on and off, over the past 3 decades.

OK, my two cents as a third party observer here and reading your past posts, to me it reads like your being a little nostalgic in your look back at your first enlistment.

Just my opinion as someone that served in the 1980's. I don't have the insight that you have serving now so I won't comment on your view of todays Army (everyone has a different perception).

Wow, what an interesting thread. Route-Step you really do simply speak your mind. And I am sure you do understand that these are just your opinion, not necessarily right or wrong, just your view on it.

I agree with pretty much all of your observations about WTC, the military now and then, and leadership now and then. I had a 20 yr break in service. But, i was not Army back then, I was Navy. But that was a very different time. We used to physically adjust bad attitudes then, certainly not now... you cant even point at a dirtbag now when talking to them.

I have made commments like yours in the distant past (went thru Ft. Sill WTC in July 2007). Maybe you will get more distance with your posts as you were PS Army and AB to boot. My view now is that I am just not impressed with ANY active duty Army as compared to AR or NG. I see these issues you bring up far more with the active army than I do with reserve component units under TRADOC. I have been at 4 different TRADOC schools now, in 4 different posts, and with the RA, and reserve in command.

I think us older and greyer soldiers/NCOs are making a difference, slowly, but we are. Our 1059's are better than the younger guys, we tend to impress more often and out perform the younger guys. Well, at least I have and the other older guys I was with have. At WTC we were the 3rd class thru Ft. Sill and maybe the failures of leadership there I saw were due to the newness of WTC at Sill, but as I read post after post of grads, it has not changed much.

I say give it back to the reserve component. the NM-ARNG was doing fine. As far as our view of leadership then and now, I truly think your mind is altering the past a bit. We were younger and dumber back then. We saw our NCOs in a shinier light than now. Maybe we were better NCOs back then, but I think it was the same as now. Only our memory has changed it.