Physical fitness standards for the reserves

[adroth]

Arguably, physical fitness is a job requirement in the profession of arms. For regular troops, the rigors of the field offer lots of opportunities to work out on-the-job. But how about for reservists?

The Singaporeans appear to take this aspect pretty seriously:

Individual Physical Proficiency Test

As I understand it (I could be wrong since I'm not Singaporean, so I hope those in the know could clarify), Singaporeans who are still eligible for national service have to submit themselves for testing in the following strength areas to determine if they are indeed taking care of themselves:

Sit-Up
Standing Broad Jump
Chin-Up
4 X 10m Shuttle Run
2.4km Run

Reservists are even given access to fitness facilities to help them meet these physical fitness standards.

By golly . .. if this isn't a GREAT way to improve the overall health of the population, I don't know what is. You can't help but think about your health if you are working to meet a national standard.

What standards are implemented in your country's reserves?

 

[Tasman]

By golly . .. if this isn't a GREAT way to improve the overall health of the population, I don't know what is. You can't help but think about your health if you are working to meet a national standard.

What standards are implemented in your country's reserves?

It's too long since I was in the reserves to be able to comment on what standards are implemented in Australia, but I can say that a program to improve the fitness of our reserves certainly wouldn't do much to help the overall health of our population. There are just too few reserves, less than 20,000 out of a population of more than 20 million! :shudder

Perhaps in Australia we could use the Singapore example as a reason to reintroduce our 1950's style of national service (98 days full time training followed by 3 years in the reserve). There is a big concern here about obesity and declining health standards!

Cheers

 

[Brycec]

Perhaps in Australia we could use the Singapore example as a reason to reintroduce our 1950's style of national service (98 days full time training followed by 3 years in the reserve). There is a big concern here about obesity and declining health standards!

Cheers

Actually thats a great point.
Obesity? 98 days of physical activity could make a big impact.
Shortage of manual skills? Chuck a couple of blokes in a tank with a spanner.
Falling numbers in the military? Assuming half the available people will fail physical fitness, increasing our army by 97,000 could solve that nicely.

Problem. It would cost us $2.8 billion per annum, on salaries alone. Plus equipment, logistical needs, etc. the cost would be unbelievable. And going from 23,000 to 120,00 is just uncontrollable. It would be virtually starting a brand new military. We couldn't fit the new recruits in Kapooka if we tried, or find enough instructors for them.

So for us to increase our overall country standards I think we'd have to phase in national service or 'optional national service.' Where you got some kind of benefit for taking part. If we got 2-5000 recruits first year and then kept on scaling up the numbers, we might be able to make a national difference.

 

[sparta]

70% or more fail the drug test, the physical fitness is a wavier if you the applicant show cause and the examaning medico agrees, this exception does not apply to direct combatant troops.When i was in it was all the rage to release combat proven and effective hardasses because they were building a modern army full of whizz bang stuff....my point is to be a soldier you don't need to be smart or incrediably fit and if you are smart you can still be a soldier you don't always need to be a officer.
I was 19yrs 87kg when i went in at a height of 178cm, i was told to reapply later, because the doctor had seen alot of people like me works out at the gym swims a little...he believed that i would not cut it. so i bet him that i could lift his 94kg bulk over my head and if successful i was to get a waiver.
oh i forgot 1 thing I am malay-chinese my family is from brunei and my dad was australian. notso teeny asian man.

*that fitness the singas do is similar to the old bft way back from the 50s*

 

[Tasman]

Problem. It would cost us $2.8 billion per annum, on salaries alone. Plus equipment, logistical needs, etc. the cost would be unbelievable. And going from 23,000 to 120,00 is just uncontrollable. It would be virtually starting a brand new military. We couldn't fit the new recruits in Kapooka if we tried, or find enough instructors for them.

So for us to increase our overall country standards I think we'd have to phase in national service or 'optional national service.' Where you got some kind of benefit for taking part. If we got 2-5000 recruits first year and then kept on scaling up the numbers, we might be able to make a national difference.

You are perfectly correct. When the 1950 scheme was introduced the army was able to persuade a large number of WW2 diggers back to both the Regular Army and CMF (as it was then called) as instructors (my Dad was one of them, attached to the Light AA and Searchlight Regiment at Hamilton, Victoria). Also the army still had the training camps, barracks, etc, developed during the war, together with plenty of surplus WW2 equipment. All of these areas would cause insurmountable problems today.

I do actually like the concept of an incentive based voluntary form of national service with a limited intake. We moved a bit in that direction with the old 12 month Ready Reserve Scheme. I thought it was a real pity when this scheme ended as it provided a pool of well trained soldiers for service in the ready reserve or to transfer to the regular army. The 1950's national service scheme trained soldiers for reserve service whilst the Vietnam era scheme trained men for the permanent force. I wouldn't favour a return to this approach but I think we do need a way to boost our ready reserve forces and ensure that all reservists have a reasonable level of basic training. Finding instructors though, could still be a problem.

Cheers

 

[sparta]

the ready reserve scheme was to replace active battlions with what was considered a cheaper alternative, a number of active battlions like 8/9RAR. it was not that it failed just more costly and just as effective as current reserves..
i see the change that would be more effective is removing the level training status(ie: 1,2,3,4,5,6) to something more simple- active or not active.

 

[Tasman]

the ready reserve scheme was to replace active battlions with what was considered a cheaper alternative

True, but it did help flesh out the Reserve, though admittedly on a small scale. I am certainly not suggesting the scheme was perfect but I think it had potential. The present 12 month program also has potential but I would prefer to see a mandatory amount of reserve service (at least 3 years) required for any who don't then sign on for permanent service.

Getting back to the topic I think any military service is likely to improve physical fitness.

Cheers

 

[rattmuff]

I don't know if you can call the Swedish National Home Guard for "reserves".
But it is the largest part of the Swedish Armed Forces with approximately 70 battalions consisting of approx 300 companies. (ca 50 000 soldiers)

For the basic Home Guard soldier there are no fitness demands except the minimum of 20 hours a year of military training and that the soldier feels and knows the area he/she's suppose to defend which creates a very strong morale.

Then there's the Home Guard "task force companies" were the soldiers has to be able to run 1 km fully equipped in 6 minutes and must participate in atleast 100 hours a year of military training.

http://hemvarnet.se/?action=visaartikel;artikelid=71
http://www.hemvarnet.mil.se/?lang=E

 

[Brycec]

I don't know if you can call the Swedish National Home Guard for "reserves".
But it is the largest part of the Swedish Armed Forces with approximately 70 battalions consisting of approx 300 companies. (ca 50 000 soldiers)

For the basic Home Guard soldier there are no fitness demands except the minimum of 20 hours a year of military training and that the soldier feels and knows the area he/she's suppose to defend which creates a very strong morale.

Then there's the Home Guard "task force companies" were the soldiers has to be able to run 1 km fully equipped in 6 minutes and must participate in atleast 100 hours a year of military training.

20 hours of training a year? That would have to be after a period of continuous training right?
Actually I think this would be good for Australia initially. Have it as voluntary, and make it almost obligation free. Phasing up the requirements and obligations as time goes by might be a good idea; as opposed to a politician dumping in a National service idea onto the public. Some people might be a little alarmed otherwise, even if it were only voluntary.

 

[rattmuff]

20 hours of training a year? That would have to be after a period of continuous training right?

Yes... To be able to join NHG you must have done at least 85 days of basic soldier training and Sweden has a armed force based on conscripts so going from conscript to NHG isn't so hard. Also the average hours a year is about 50.

Those hours means soldier training and military exercises. So meetings, sports activities and so on doesn't count.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You are perfectly correct. When the 1950 scheme was introduced the army was able to persuade a large number of WW2 diggers back to both the Regular Army and CMF (as it was then called) as instructors (my Dad was one of them, attached to the Light AA and Searchlight Regiment at Hamilton, Victoria). Also the army still had the training camps, barracks, etc, developed during the war, together with plenty of surplus WW2 equipment. All of these areas would cause insurmountable problems today.

I do actually like the concept of an incentive based voluntary form of national service with a limited intake. We moved a bit in that direction with the old 12 month Ready Reserve Scheme. I thought it was a real pity when this scheme ended as it provided a pool of well trained soldiers for service in the ready reserve or to transfer to the regular army. The 1950's national service scheme trained soldiers for reserve service whilst the Vietnam era scheme trained men for the permanent force. I wouldn't favour a return to this approach but I think we do need a way to boost our ready reserve forces and ensure that all reservists have a reasonable level of basic training. Finding instructors though, could still be a problem.

Cheers

There were a number of problems with the Ready Reserve scheme that wasn't apparent. On paper the idea was sound, in practice it wasn't as good as it seemed.

One problem was the overly generous student loan scheme at the end of the first year. Sure it attracted plenty of students, but these students were the same ones who FAILED to meet parade requirements ONCE they were part time and Army couldn't force them to turn up.

The "double chocks" were worse than ordinary reserve soldiers in that sense. They were slightly more qualified than reserve soldiers (having been trained to "ARA" standards initially), got paid MORE to turn up, but because the overwhelming majority of them were there for the benefits, rather than the experience and the work, they tended to be less inclined TO actually turn up when they didn't have to.

The biggest financial incentive to turn up, occurred over the usual ARA "BRL" (block recreational leave) period, where their units spent ALL their time in barracks, meaning they did such meaningful training as guard and Orderley room duties etc.

Of course, Army receives little benefit from it's investment in this, but allowed the "Double chocls" to meet their "parading requirements" by doing this (in their holidays) and paying them a shite load (a $1500 tacx free bonus EACH) for meeting training requirements and then basically providing a long list of excuses as to why they couldn't attend proper training activities.

Army didn't receive the operational benefit from the scheme it expected and hence it was dumped. (Plus it was a labour party idea to boot).

The current "gap year" ideas are pretty reasonable I think and I hope they work out. Plus the "High Readiness Reserve" idea should cater to those "warrie people" who want to be able to do "active service" but don't or can't be regular soldiers for whatever reason.

 

[Tasman]

There were a number of problems with the Ready Reserve scheme that wasn't apparent. On paper the idea was sound, in practice it wasn't as good as it seemed.

One problem was the overly generous student loan scheme at the end of the first year. Sure it attracted plenty of students, but these students were the same ones who FAILED to meet parade requirements ONCE they were part time and Army couldn't force them to turn up.

The "double chocks" were worse than ordinary reserve soldiers in that sense. They were slightly more qualified than reserve soldiers (having been trained to "ARA" standards initially), got paid MORE to turn up, but because the overwhelming majority of them were there for the benefits, rather than the experience and the work, they tended to be less inclined TO actually turn up when they didn't have to.

The biggest financial incentive to turn up, occurred over the usual ARA "BRL" (block recreational leave) period, where their units spent ALL their time in barracks, meaning they did such meaningful training as guard and Orderley room duties etc.

Of course, Army receives little benefit from it's investment in this, but allowed the "Double chocls" to meet their "parading requirements" by doing this (in their holidays) and paying them a shite load (a $1500 tacx free bonus EACH) for meeting training requirements and then basically providing a long list of excuses as to why they couldn't attend proper training activities.

Army didn't receive the operational benefit from the scheme it expected and hence it was dumped. (Plus it was a labour party idea to boot).

The current "gap year" ideas are pretty reasonable I think and I hope they work out. Plus the "High Readiness Reserve" idea should cater to those "warrie people" who want to be able to do "active service" but don't or can't be regular soldiers for whatever reason.

That explains a few things. I always wondered why the scheme was dumped with so little regret from the army. Much the same thing happened during my time in the reserve in the late 60s. A number of people took the option of 6 (IIRC) years in the reserve as an alternative to 2 years fulltime national service. The trouble was that many of them turned up just enough to avoid being thrown out (and hence eligible for fulltime service) and some also had an appalling attitude to anything to do with the military. We had always had a happy unit that trained hard and had reached a high state of efficiency but the influx of part time soldiers who didn't want to be there severely dented morale.

Cheers