FORCE Combat standard [Merged]

[a_majoor]

If you want it standardized then great, but pushing/marching ones body weight is not necessarily a standard.  A 60kg person carrying 30kg extra is far from a 100kg person carrying an extra 30kg.

While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either; which brings females into the mix now too. 

With the diversity of persons in this world and the variety of ways to test fitness/strength, a standard is not achievable and no large group will ever agree.

I will have to disagree with you here Gny. A GPMG weighs 11kg without ammunition or the SF kit. This does not change if a scrawny individual or female has to carry it, and the reason I am dead set against "differential" standards regardless of how "scientific" they are is the plain fact that kit, ammunition, water etc. does not magically change mass when someone else is manipulating it.

In fact, differential testing and standards could leave me in the situation where only the small person is left and we need to take the GPMG. Do I leave it behind because soldier "X" passed the lesser test but is unable to shoulder the mass of the weapon? I'd frankly leave solider "X" behind before I go into the fight without the GPMG. Suggestions like "well, soldier "Y" can carry the GPMG" miss the point; how is it effective man management to constantly saddle the same small cadre with the most difficult and demanding tasks because the others are simply not physically capable?

So in my mind, for the standards to be valid, they have to reflect the real world conditions that are being faced. If the job entails carrying 30kg of kit (including section and platoon stores), then everyone needs to carry 30kg, and be able to move together as a unit (having to wait around while the person bearing the SF kit catches up is also going to have negative consequences).

Given the increasing emphasis on unconventional warfare (including constructs like Hybrid War, "Unrestricted Warfare", "Next Generation War", 4GW etc.), to say that the RMS clerk is never going to have to face these conditions is frighteningly ignoring the new realities. It is far more likely the RMS clerk is more likely to face attack, since logistics and administration are high value/high payoff targets.

 

[PanaEng]

I will have to disagree with you here Gny. A GPMG weighs 11kg without ammunition or the SF kit. This does not change if a scrawny individual or female has to carry it, and the reason I am dead set against "differential" standards regardless of how "scientific" they are is the plain fact that kit, ammunition, water etc. does not magically change mass when someone else is manipulating it.

I don't think he was saying that at all:

While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either;

 

[Infanteer]

I realize this thread is old, but is anybody tracking if the IBTS PAM has been updated with the Load Bearing March yet? And what that entails?

We have had someone thunder in on the 13km and before moving forward someone pondered that the new Load Bearing March didn't have a time limit attached to it. I have never heard this before but without knowing if the old BFT time limit is in play or whether there is a new LBM format we are supposed to have followed its hard to move forward on this.

The IBTS PAM has not been updated.  The Army Op Plan only states that Physical Fitness Testing will consist of a 13 KM LBM and casualty drag to be completed.  No mention of time.

You can likely cite a member for performance issues for failing to achieve IBTS if they cannot complete the march.

On that note, is there any centralized place where I can find the most recent editions of all PAMs? One where I know that the version being presented is the version currently in use?

Army Electronic Library.  It's a sharepoint version now and is on the DWAN.

 

[ballz]

The IBTS PAM has not been updated.  The Army Op Plan only states that Physical Fitness Testing will consist of a 13 KM LBM and casualty drag to be completed.  No mention of time.

You can likely cite a member for performance issues for failing to achieve IBTS if they cannot complete the march.

Army Electronic Library.  It's a sharepoint version now and is on the DWAN.

Thanks, found that stuff today, very happy we are working off live documents more and more these days.

The IBTS PAM states that Fitness IS2 is the "Load Bearing March" as per the Army Fitness Manual. The Army Fitness Manual defines the LBM as "13km, xx kg, blah blah blah, to be completed in 2h 26m," so there is still a time limit.

The member completed the march but did not complete it in the required time unfortunately. When the BFT was an actual physical fitness standard, the good book dictated that this would result in an Initial Counselling. Now that it is an IBTS, an IC is no longer dictated, and its more of a command decision. Given the member's circumstances we are not using formal Remedial Measures but a 5b PDR will be issued with a plan put in place to ensure they are given the opportunity to improve and pass in 3 months time, and it will be made clear that a failure in 3 months time will very likely result in an Initial Counselling.

Cheers

 

[Halifax Tar]

I am assuming the writers of, and General, in this article are speaking army centric here.  As this test isn’t worth peanuts to a ships coy deploying... Not sure about the RCAF...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/troops-fitness-deployed-test-1.4402024

 

[Stoker]

From what I have read in the original document it supposed to be the March, followed by dropping the small pack, 5 min rest and then right into the FORCE test with no breaks in between. All with weapon and gear.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Current force is, honestly, fairly relevent. Seeking cover, moving a load, pulling a casualty, all are tasks that can reasonable to expected to be preformed. Even air crew can get hit with mortars and rockets, or in a conventional sense enemy air. Easily justified for Navy too.

We cant march anywhere, we very rarely lift sand bags, we cant pepper pod on a ship, the cas drag perhaps but doing it in buker gear would be more realistic.

Not to mention we arent issued field kit...

Tell me how this relates to naval deployments again ? 

 

[dimsum]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will end up being just for Army-centric deployments.  It's not super-relevant for, say, a fast-jet deployment or the majority of Aurora deployments where we aren't issued helmets or weapons.

 

[FSTO]

Once again the Canadian Media continues the idea that the CAF is Army only.

 

[jollyjacktar]

What does your navy deployment pt test look like?

Unless things have changed, the navy doesn't do that silly stuff.  If the ship's going, you go with it.  We practice the battle/damage control drills that we would be doing on a regular basis and would do a good deal of it in workups for a mission anyhow.  Why do a test to do what you're already doing to begin with?

When I was going into the sandbox with Roto 7, that was a different matter.  While in Rome...  we may be in the same CAF but we're different animals with different needs.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not sure how this will make sure I can do my job properly, which is stay to focused for up to 10 hours straight sitting in place...

If I have to get out, you can be sure I'll carry a lot less than 35kg and I won't have to drag anybody around.

From my perspective, a waste of time rather than something meaningful.

 

[Stoker]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me it looks like he's singling out Navy cooks?But isn't this a common enough practice already?  If someones skills are deemed essential then we deploy them anyways.

I'd say there needs to be some kind of common test or baseline.

I thought the FORCE was the baseline with the other operational tests for the various elements. Wasn't FORCE developed by taking into account what happened on a ship as well as other activities. I honestly don't see the need for another test for a ship deploying as our job at sea doesn't really change.

 

[dapaterson]

I thought the FORCE was the baseline with the other operational tests for the various elements. Wasn't FORCE developed by taking into account what happened on a ship as well as other activities. I honestly don't see the need for another test for a ship deploying as our job at sea doesn't really change.

My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).


I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.

Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test. 

 

[Stoker]

My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).


I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.

Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.

Thanks I suspected so much.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).


I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.

Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.

Work ups (WUPS) for a ship is the deployment readiness training/test. It is difficult and physically demanding on everyone.

It is not the same as an individual physical fitness test. Which the FORCE test already seems to do a pretty good job of testing what I have to do on a ship. The sandbags could be firehose or AFFF cans, for all I care. The up/down part of the rush actually simulates utility work in the aft cabin of the of the helicopter remarkably well.

It is a good test.

 

[dapaterson]

Work ups (WUPS) for a ship is the deployment readiness training/test. It is difficult and physically demanding on everyone.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is not the same as an individual physical fitness test. Which the FORCE test already seems to do a pretty good job of testing what I have to do on a ship. The sandbags could be firehose or AFFF cans, for all I care. The up/down part of the rush actually simulates utility work in the aft cabin of the of the helicopter remarkably well.

It is a good test.

Indeed.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).


I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.

Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.

The LBM - Load Bearing March (13km) is the Army IBTS standard... Force Combat is for deployable and CADTC Units IIRC....

 

[dapaterson]

The LBM - Load Bearing March (13km) is the Army IBTS standard... Force Combat is for deployable and CADTC Units IIRC....

No.  LBM has been replaced by FORCE Combat.

https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx

This is not an employment standard, FORCE remains the CAF physical employment Standard. FORCE Combat will replace the 13km march (BFT) as the physical fitness check in Individual Battle Tasks Standards (IBTS).

 

[Nfld Sapper]

How about they first give us all the kit needed to do this stupid test... ;D

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

This is not an employment standard, FORCE remains the CAF physical employment Standard. FORCE Combat will replace the 13km march (BFT) as the physical fitness check in Individual Battle Tasks Standards (IBTS).

Hence the reason why they can waive it if someone doesn't meet the test requirement. The Force test remains the one that goes on your MPRR and PER.