Post: #1

I almost choked on my cereal reading this the other day.

Here's the article;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7324009/ar...ess-tests/

(Looks legit. The Telegraph reports it too, but it's behind a paywall).

Quote:A NEW gender-neutral Army training regime sees press-ups and sit-ups dropped for a more "achievable" fitness test.

The new assessments will be rolled out next year because the enemy "doesn't care about gender or age".

For 20 years, fitness assessments were focused on aerobic fitness, demanding stamina, muscular endurance and strength.

Under the new system soldiers will have to do a 4km march carrying 40kg of equipment in less than 40 minutes, followed by a 2km march carrying 25kg of equipment in under 15 minutes.

Soldiers will then have to complete a fire and move exercise in less than five minutes, followed by a 20m drag of a 110kg weight.

Field Army Sergeant Major Gavin Paton said: "I don't care if you are a man or a woman, I don't care what you do, and the enemy doesn't either.”

The new tests, devised over a period of three years in conjunction with the University of Chichester, aim to more closely replicate combat scenarios by mimicking real-life military tasks.

Speaking at the Army base in Aldershot, Lance Corporal Nicola Cotton of the Scots Guards said the move was "really positive".

She added: "People underestimate females in the British Army. I think it is about time we upped the ante and make it equal and not make allowances for gender or age."

Lieutenant Colonel Anne Fieldhouse, from the Royal Army Military Corps, said the new tests need to "fit with the modern approach" to sports science.

Sgt Maj Paton said he could not comment on whether the new tests would impact on the recruitment of women and older people into the Army, but anybody who meets the physical requirements is "more than welcome".

Just another nail in the UK's coffin, nothing to see here. My own view is that in peacetime, cucked countries like mine think they can afford to just piss about with these crazy ideas to keep the women and shitlibs happy. But once shit gets real, it will all get pushed aside overnight like the self-indulgent idiocy it undoubtedly is.

At least these are just fitness assessments and not entry tests ... oh wait..

Quote:Similar changes to Army entry testing are set to be announced in December.

I've never served in the forces (regretfully) but I've family in there. And they aren't happy with how things are going, not one bit.

These new fitness criteria (the weight drags and marches etc.) are ok in themselves (though not taxing) but why not retain push-ups? Oh yes, I forgot; because women just can't do them. That's the only reason why.

Post: #2

Sounds a lot like the Australian army PES. Rumor was the even big chunks of the front line infantry was failing it, so it never got introduced as THE fitness test, they kept the old pushups, situps and a run. Then have to complete this before deploying anywhere.

Linky

EDIT: to be clear,I'm gonig off what I've been told, not doing my own digging.

Post: #3

"...gender or age."

Always pay attention to the new variations.

Looks like they're running low on gullible young patriots. The new game will be to stuff the rear echelons with cunts and retrenched bureaucrat oldfags, all of which will be soy as fuck. What short supply of young Anglo males they still reel in will be needed entirely at the sausage end of the grinder, not the handle.

Post: #4

I wouldn't want to work with a woman (unless they were my secretary), there is just no way I would ever fight alongside one. I don't care about all those examples of Russian women fighting bravely in WW2, it just doesn't sit right with me.

I had a quick look on an army message board reporting the story and the comments from people serving are split, which frankly sickens me. The amount of men posting in favour and saying 'it's about time' and 'women can do whatever we can' etc. is just baffling. Yes let them in but not in combat for fucks sake. Otherwise what's the point of fighting at all for a so-called civilisation that let's its women do the fighting?

I read once that the Krauts refused to let their women fight, even at the end when all they had was kids and old men left. If true, then good for them, it just ain't natural. Same as when I see women boxing, but don't get me started on that, I feel a rant coming on.

Post: #5

Quote: ... gender-neutral Army...

Amazing to think that this is coming from a tiny island whose ruthlessly efficient military and merchants once proudly brought us this:

Post: #6

Quote:She added: "People underestimate females in the British Army."

Actually people's estimation of female soldiers is entirely accurate, hence the reason they needed to get rid of pushups.

Post: #7

To be honest the deterioration of the army during a time of decadence and relative peace is to be expected. That's what happened to Rome even though it was attacked on all sizes and most of the soldiers were barbarian foedoerati.

What I would like to see is some shit lord going all out and declare women must now register for draft in case of emergency/martial laws. I would love to see the outcry then.

I'm not even sure what it means to be in the army nowadays? Is it just a ticket for free ed and benefits? A substitute lifestyle for sportive guys who don't want to be an athlete? UK, France and other european countries are not engaged in opened conflict so being a soldier just mean you get deployed on long grinding patrol?

Post: #8

(09-24-2018 08:25 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I'm not even sure what it means to be in the army nowadays? Is it just a ticket for free ed and benefits? A substitute lifestyle for sportive guys who don't want to be an athlete? UK, France and other european countries are not engaged in opened conflict so being a soldier just mean you get deployed on long grinding patrol?

I think if you can get in and out without getting your legs blown off then it would still have a lot going for it for a while yet.

Still mostly men doing a physical, well-respected job that still gets panties wet. Weapons training (big deal in the UK where you don't get to use them), free vocational training, free food and lodging. I'll mention Weapons training again for emphasis.

If you enjoy it and save your money and come out with experience and quals (all paid for by the government) then I don't think you've much to complain about.

Better still, nowadays you don't even need to do any press-ups!

Post: #9

^^Actually appart from Special OP's, in countries not at war, the soldier experience is mostly boozing and doing nothing all day. At least the Navy does something in my country, there is a large coast and exclusive maritime economic zone to be patrolled and many sea rescuing operations are done by those guys.

Post: #10

All good point and I agree the army still is a good career option especially in the USA. As long as there are no war or serious jobs to do, you can even game these new development to your advantage.

But from a sociological standpoint, the lack of war and active engagement duty does change the raison d'être of the army.

There has always been a small but non-negligible portion of the population who are, for a lack of better term, predisposed to killing and violence. People who enjoy killing just because.
In the past these people, if left in society, would cause undue havoc. So one way to shift their aggression in a more productive way was to conscript them to war. Everybody is happy. The idea of penal regiments made up of convicted felons is pretty popular in every country's military history.

Now that you can no longer get paid to kill the enemy of the state, I wonder where these dangerous elements go? Elliot Rodger, if thrown into conscription and go through rigorous training, will either blow up like private Pyle (unlikely) or become better adjusted and draw some better sense of self-worth from the camaraderie.

Post: #11

I don't understand the outrage over this. It seems like a relatively sensible test that mimics the actual demands of being a soldier. Of course, the standards are low for the ruck march, but honestly the army basic test has always been low - they don't want to fail people. The current test involves jerry can carries, and putting up to 20kg sandbags on a chest height shelf.

These are not the standards you are expected to meet if you are in an infantry unit. Or rather, the official standard is never the standard individual regiments expect their soldiers to obtain once they pass through basic training. For example, the current official army fitness test mile and a half run standard is 10:30. I don't know any one who actually deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in a front line unit that couldn't run under 9:30, as a minimum.

This new basic test, though not demanding, seems more in line with what you actually have to do as a soldier than situps and push ups are. Besides, 40 push ups in 2 mins, or 40 situps in 2 mins is not a demanding standard. Anyone who can't drastically exceed the basic standard is probably not being deployed with a front line unit.

Post: #12

Yeah, H1N1, I think the 'scientifically updated' additions to the tests all look good to me. Not that it matters because we all know that these tests weren't changed for scientific reasons.

It's the removal of press-ups that irks. They're easy enough for any man, but women struggle, and rightfully so as they don't have the upper body strength (and why should they? Nature wants them to look pretty and have babies, not kill people in hand-to-hand combat). They were removed purely to replace men with women in an organisation charged with defending our shores against hostile invaders.

But, you're right, I should be beyond getting outraged about stuff like this. Especially since the only threat the UK now faces is from within and since we don't even have the will to control our borders, a standing army is of little consequence anyway. So let them play their games in their rainbow-coloured tanks or whatever comes next.

Post: #13

(09-24-2018 10:42 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  Yeah, H1N1, I think the 'scientifically updated' additions to the tests all look good to me. Not that it matters because we all know that these tests weren't changed for scientific reasons.

It's the removal of press-ups that irks. They're easy enough for any man, but women struggle, and rightfully so as they don't have the upper body strength (and why should they? Nature wants them to look pretty and have babies, not kill people in hand-to-hand combat). They were removed purely to replace men with women in an organisation charged with defending our shores against hostile invaders.

But, you're right, I should be beyond getting outraged about stuff like this. Especially since the only threat the UK faces is from within and since we can't even police our borders, a standing army is of little consequence anyway. So let them play their games in their rainbow-coloured tanks or whatever comes next.

There is not one thing that I would disagree with on this whole thread, RT. However, in an emergency response where combat is eminent, I tend to think that nature/God evolved women to run like hell while the men of the group fought it out.

Post: #14

@H1N1, I have a hard time believing the majority of army guys can do a 1.5 mile in under 9:30. That is not an easy time. Maybe in the UK, but here in the US? Many of them are overweight (as are most cops and law enforcement people). I'd be surprised if they could do 40 strict pushups as well.

Post: #15

I can bet this will eventually turn this into some sort of "team exercise" where " the strongest members of team" will be encouraged to carry some weight of the "weakest members" it will become more about team, task sharing and "brain power" to optimally divide the weight.


Everything of course to hide the politically incorrect truths about gender dis-balance and female unfitness to combat.

Considering the phrase that enemy "doesn't care about gender or age". - this betrays that these people have no clue why women are not sent to war. I will tell you what - physical power is only the secondary concern here. The real shit starts when enemy soldiers are captured. If captives are women then it gets UGLY. I don''t need to spell it out, you can imagine it for yourselves. The enemy absolutely does care about your gender and it is very very ugly when it does.

Post: #16

I'd still slightly disagree RT. I am not sure the test has been changed for ideological reasons. The army fitness test has been in line for an update for years in my opinion. This isn't the test I'd have designed, but it isn't awful either (keep in mind all the non combat troops have to meet this standard too). I never saw a girl fail the AFT on pressups, even if they couldn't hit the numbers. The PT would just tell them to do more of them in his report to their unit. Same when they couldn't run a 10:30. Since they weren't in combat arms, it wasn't so important.

Post: #17

My great granny is 82 and she does physical training better than you!

Post: #18

The British Army are going to be fuck all use when SHTF anyway. Future wars will not be conventional.

Post: #19

I'm blown away by the doublespeak/doublethink going on here.

"The new assessments will be rolled out next year because the enemy "doesn't care about gender or age".

Your stated reason is that the enemy doesn't care about gender, so you change your test till women pass? This make zero sense whatsoever.

Post: #20

Not sure how some of these "ladies" of either gender are going to handle a .50 cal.

https://youtu.be/kSuzQA4CZb4

Post: #21

The only pertinent question for British fighting men in the future will be: Do we have enough recruits to expel the Muslim takeover of the Isles? And that's assuming they're going to fight back at all!

Post: #22

Welp.

G

Post: #23

(09-24-2018 11:30 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  @H1N1, I have a hard time believing the majority of army guys can do a 1.5 mile in under 9:30. That is not an easy time. Maybe in the UK, but here in the US? Many of them are overweight (as are most cops and law enforcement people). I'd be surprised if they could do 40 strict pushups as well.

I didn't say the majority of army guys. The majority of the army is comprised of support positions, everything from artillery through to the cooking corps. Clearly most of these guys aren't running sub 9:30 miles. Nor do they need to. That was my point. What I said was that most front line infantry at the time of deployment will be running sub 9:30 miles. It is not an easy time, but deploying to combat is not easy, and pre deployment training is very different to basic peacetime training. It is designed to make you combat ready. Part of that is developing a very high level of fitness.

Post: #24

Set your standards so high that even you fail to meet your standards on occasion.

Plus in the age of 4th generation warfare. Even support troops can readily find themselves on the front line.

Post: #25

Field Army Sergeant Major Gavin Paton Wrote:the enemy "doesn't care about gender or age"

Isn't that the whole fucking point?