4 Responses to “Canadian Army – FORCE Combat”

1. Kirk says:

   September 2, 2017 at 21:18

   Looks like an interesting approach, and one that is at least somewhat body-weight agnostic–Which I think is the biggest failing of our current set of standards across the US forces.

   The load doesn’t adjust itself to suit your gender, body size/composition, or whatever else you bring to it. You can either hack it, or you can’t, and the question of whether or not you can score 290 on the APFT is immaterial if you can’t actually do the damn job when you need to.

   We very badly need to recast the entire question of how we evaluate physical fitness, and start including real-world standards. Yeah, you may be superbly fit for your body size and gender, but if you can’t actually effectively participate in loading that damn truck with crates of ammo when you have to, and are the only available asset to do that job…? You don’t need to be in a fucking uniform, and you don’t need to be drawing a goddamn paycheck.

   Realistic, validated physical requirements need to be established, and then tested for. I can buy the APFT-style events as a general assessment for individual physical fitness, but the fact is, those tests need to be backed up by some real-world standards as well–Like, can you actually get that crate of ammo up off the pallet and onto the truck 95 times in a half-hour in the absence of all that MHE we like to plan for, and often can’t actually provide out where the rubber meets the road…

   You take a long, hard look at the things that were historically required of our troops back in the darker days of our history, like the Chosin Reservoir withdrawal, and you have to wonder how well we’re going to do with today’s units that are starting from significantly lower physical capacities. All the enablers that we have come to rely on, like having forklifts out in the forward ASP sites, aren’t always going to be there. It’s about damn time we start to acknowledge that fact, plan for it, and select/train our troops to account for those unfortunate facts. Or, fate and circumstance are damn sure going to be teaching us all some harsh lessons.

2. Major Smoof says:

   September 2, 2017 at 21:32

   These standards were developed NOT to test “fitness”, but to test whether or not a member is capable of meeting the baseline requirements of the Forces and, in this case, the combat arms.

   This was driven by the administrative process that might ultimately result in a member’s administrative review (AR) in order to ultimately move towards a release, should the member not be able to meet the standard after remedial training.

   In many ways, these changes were meant to “grievance-proof” ARs. While there are jokes within the ranks about how easy it is (and it is), it is important to shift one’s perspective and realize the point behind it.

   At the end of the day, the CAF is still fat and a bit of an embarrassment when we deploy, notwithstanding the combat arms. Many officers, and NCMs alike (especially Reserve Force) lack any ambition as regards fitness. I am often amazed when I see some in 3Bs. I literally did not know there were shirts that large in the supply chain. At least this type of testing gives the CoC, if they’re willing, to actually move members towards release.

   • Captain Canuck says:

     September 3, 2017 at 01:26

     One Army – One Standard. Stop this ‘us and them’ attitude and soldier on!

3. Mac says:

   September 3, 2017 at 21:08

   I like the approach the Aussies have taken with their Physical Employment Standard Assessment (PESA). It’s scientifically validated, gender/size agnostic and appropriate to your role/job (there are three standards – All Corps, Combat Support and Close Combat).

   http://video.defence.gov.au/play/3689#