Usans too fat to fight
- Thread starter E.J.Armstrong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- obesity
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Just anopther point. Many people do lose weight and get fit in basic training, and to a degree, there's allowance for that.
However, training (non-physical) starts from day one. While the basic training group can handle some people falling behind due to physical issues, as that percentage grows it reduces the time training in actual military techniques. THis means more troops missing out on some training or getting shorter versions of training, or longer hours, both of which mean higher costs overall per soldier.
Of course, they could set up a "pre-basic", as someone mentioned, that was specifically focus on physical fitness and/or weight loss...but again, you increase training times, which means a higher cost per soldier.
Already, the Army spends something like $150,000 to $250,000 per soldier to get them through basic training and AIT (tech school/job school). I'll have to double-check those figures, because it's been a while and they could very well be different now.
There's also an issue with obesity IN the Army (I can't speak so much fo rother branches of service). There are weight and height standards, as well as physical fitness standards. However, the Army has been so short on personnel, especially trained personnel (thanks in part to all the early retirement incentives offered during the Clinton era) that many people are given waivers to stay in. In almost every Army unit I've been in there have been people who have not passed a PT test in over a year, and some for several years (they're supposed to be given every 6 months). Same with weigh-ins.
However, training (non-physical) starts from day one. While the basic training group can handle some people falling behind due to physical issues, as that percentage grows it reduces the time training in actual military techniques. THis means more troops missing out on some training or getting shorter versions of training, or longer hours, both of which mean higher costs overall per soldier.
Of course, they could set up a "pre-basic", as someone mentioned, that was specifically focus on physical fitness and/or weight loss...but again, you increase training times, which means a higher cost per soldier.
Already, the Army spends something like $150,000 to $250,000 per soldier to get them through basic training and AIT (tech school/job school). I'll have to double-check those figures, because it's been a while and they could very well be different now.
There's also an issue with obesity IN the Army (I can't speak so much fo rother branches of service). There are weight and height standards, as well as physical fitness standards. However, the Army has been so short on personnel, especially trained personnel (thanks in part to all the early retirement incentives offered during the Clinton era) that many people are given waivers to stay in. In almost every Army unit I've been in there have been people who have not passed a PT test in over a year, and some for several years (they're supposed to be given every 6 months). Same with weigh-ins.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
yeah good old times when you actually had some money left.... but today you ask the Chinese for money
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Actually, it should be fairly obvious that low-income people would be a recruiting target. High income people often have little incentive to leave a comfortable and well-paying job for military service (which will almost always pay less than a comparable civillian career). And those of higher-income brackets who do join tend towards guard and reserve, so they can keep their civillian careers.
Also, the benefits provided to every soldier that joins means you give the low-income kids a chance to break that chain: they get money for college (various GI Bills, Student Loan Repayment, etc), good training (military training, some training can even qualify one for professional certifications and/or college credits, and professional certification tests and credit grants are offered at no or reduced costs to military), excellent health and dental coverage, good, inexpensive life insurance, access to all sorts of self-paced training (every Army soldier can get free, unlimited access to SkillSoft, which offers online training models in thousands of different fields), and other things I'm probably not thinking of.
Frankly, I'm glad the Army targets low income people, to give them a chance to better their situation.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
If the minimum standard isn't good enough, than it should be raised. This criticism has nothing to do with being overweight or not at the start of basic.
-----------------------------
As for increased training time increasing the cost of training, I agree. However, I'd argue that if that is the main concern, poor academic performance in the US would be a better target to shorten training. Falling behind in specialization training is going to cost far more than falling behind in PT for the simple fact that it doesn't take as much money to teach someone to get up and run at five in the morning.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
You have no idea how U.S. Army "basic training" works, do you?
It's an eight-week course of nothing but 10-12 hours of physical, mental, and emotional exercise, to exhaustion, on a strictly-regulated diet, every day. Most soldiers who graduate from basic training go on to their next posting more physically fit than at any future point in their military career (the exceptions being those assigned to units whose mission requires them to sustain that level of fitness).
The "major" issue would be the number of people healthy enough to even begin such a program. It's the minimum requirement on entry that matters. By the time you graduate, you'll be so far above that requirement that it'll take years to drop back down to minimum army standards.
Tatyana
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,701
Meh, if you think that the problem of obesity is limited to the US, you are sadly mistaken.
While the US may have a bit of a head start, there are quite a few countries rapidly catching up.
There was a fantastic Scientific American issue dedicated to this, I think they have a podcast related to it as well: The World is Fat.
While the US may have a bit of a head start, there are quite a few countries rapidly catching up.
There was a fantastic Scientific American issue dedicated to this, I think they have a podcast related to it as well: The World is Fat.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Yes, I do. Far better than you I suspect. 4 years active duty in the 80s and not quite 4 years of the guard.
Not really true. Maybe if you excluded the "nothing but" phrase you would be closer to correct. It is rigorous, but it is not that difficult physically. Sure most entering find it a challenge. But it is not that much of a physical challenge unless you are out of shape to start with.
The average recruit is going to emerge in better shape than they entered. But it all depends on where they start. The amount of improvement is relative to what you start with. Start with out of shape couch potatoes and what you get at the end of 8 weeks is a less out of shape couch potato.
Start with an athlete and you get pretty much what you started out with. I was a swimmer in high school. I did improve on the APFT a bit during basic. The guys who were out of shape going in were still not great examples of fitness when they graduated. Garbage in, higher quality garbage out.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Raising standards in the army does not improve the quality of recruits before entry. The problem with minimum standards in general is they do not capture what happens with humans. I have not seen data, but based on my own experience, there should be a bell curve to the physical performance of soldiers. The average should be in the middle of the points revived on the APFT. The out of shape and the athletes should be defining the end of the curve.
Raising the minimum standards won't automatically raise the middle of the curve. The average performance is what will matter in the end.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
No, it simply is not. The physical requirements of the various roles are hugely different in both type and magnitude. The physical stress put on the heavy infantry guy who has to lug the SAW is completely different from that put on the Predator drone operator, and in turn both are different from the advanced recon team.
Maybe the Predator drone pilot can only do forty push ups in a minute while the recon guy can do seventy. Maybe the SAW infantry man can drag six hundred pounds while the recon guy can only drag four hundred. The average simply does not matter as long as they are good at their roles.
I'll restate. If the minimum standard is not sufficient for the role, then new minimum standards that can suffice must be used for that role. Training doesn't end with basic, nor do the minimums.
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,681
I imagine Full Metal Jacket, but now everybody is fat except the one guy who blows his brains out.
You read it here first, in one of those excellent EJ threads.
You read it here first, in one of those excellent EJ threads.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
The average does matter. Most soldiers are not crack athletes and never will be. Also a soldiers MOS is picked before starting training. Noting is there to stop the couch potatoes from picking infantry. Everybody takes the same fitness test in the army. (BTW, SAWs are not all that heavy. Try something in the medium anti-tank role for serious weight.) For combat and combat support, fitness matters. The performance curve is still going to be there. A guy that is out of shape but enlists in the infantry is only going to improve incrementally over time. There is a good chance his condition will degrade after basic rather than improve unless he is in a unit that really does stress physical fitness more than most have done traditionally.
The most likely exception to that would be if the guy is in a light infantry unit. But even then, they are still not going to produce great results is they start with poor material. The better the average condition, the better the unit performs.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
FitCo was an undesired stop on the way to Basic when I enlisted. I imagine it still is.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yes, but some areas do require higher scores than others. Admittedly, this is currently limited to Rangers and Special Operations (I believe both require a score over 70 on the 18-21 year old scale in each event in order to qualify).
But in general, you are correct.
As for lugging things, 87mm Mortar with base plate. Those ******* is heavy!
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
I think you mean 81mm. Maybe a 4.2" (117mm) but nobody ever thought those were "man portable". Either way, not a problem I had. Never had any experience on mortars even in IOBC. Worst thing I ever had to haul any distance was a 90mm recoiless when I was enlisted, and I was not the gunner.
Cainkane1
Philosopher
You go to deserts and jungles the fat comes off.
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
My experience, way back in the 60s, was likely much different than what goes on now....
We had two obviously-obese individuals in our basic training unit. We had many who were in terrible shape (mostly due to smoking and inactivity) but the two chubby guys were unmercifully hounded over their inability to even do the morning run and washed out in a couple of weeks.
However, once we got to a permanent unit in Germany, all physical training was pretty much over. The only time anyone did "PT" was if there happened to be a division-level officer snooping around.
We had many soldiers who were in dreadful shape; one sergeant weighed in at some 600 pounds. (They had to weigh him at the motor pool). He could not perform his primary MOS (truck driver) since he could not physically get into the cab of a truck. So...they made him a cook.
His obesity was "service related" (he got fat while in the army) so they couldn't just boot him out.
Back then, we medics would give you a huge bottle of amphetamines if you came in complaining that you were gaining weight.
We had two obviously-obese individuals in our basic training unit. We had many who were in terrible shape (mostly due to smoking and inactivity) but the two chubby guys were unmercifully hounded over their inability to even do the morning run and washed out in a couple of weeks.
However, once we got to a permanent unit in Germany, all physical training was pretty much over. The only time anyone did "PT" was if there happened to be a division-level officer snooping around.
We had many soldiers who were in dreadful shape; one sergeant weighed in at some 600 pounds. (They had to weigh him at the motor pool). He could not perform his primary MOS (truck driver) since he could not physically get into the cab of a truck. So...they made him a cook.
His obesity was "service related" (he got fat while in the army) so they couldn't just boot him out.
Back then, we medics would give you a huge bottle of amphetamines if you came in complaining that you were gaining weight.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yeah, 81mm. I think you're right. I didn't haul them (much)...I was medic for the mortar platoon in a light infantry unit
