Introduction
The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) are benchmarks for evaluating military personnel’s physical capabilities. Over the years, these tests have undergone significant transformations to better align with the evolving needs of the modern military landscape.
Comparison of Army Fitness Tests
The APFT, an enduring institution, was the yardstick for assessing soldiers’ physical fitness for several decades. Consisting of three fundamental components—push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run—it provided a basic assessment of overall wellness. To successfully pass the APFT, soldiers needed to achieve at least 60 points in each category. Push-ups and sit-ups were time-constrained, each completed within one minute, while the two-mile run must be accomplished in under 17 minutes (US Army, 2021).
While the APFT offered a general overview of a soldier’s physical condition, it lacked a specific focus on skills and abilities relevant to combat situations. The inception of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) in 2018 marked a significant departure from the traditional APFT. This new test aimed to supplant the APFT as the official physical fitness evaluation for the Army, introducing a more comprehensive approach tailored to the demands of contemporary warfare.
The ACFT comprises six distinct events, each designed to assess different facets of physical fitness essential for success on the battlefield. To pass the ACFT, soldiers must attain a minimum score of 60 points in each event. The first event, the deadlift, challenges soldiers to lift a weight equivalent to or greater than their body weight, emphasizing lower body strength—a crucial attribute for combat situations. The standing power throw, featuring a 10-pound medicine ball, assesses a soldier’s explosive power and accuracy, skills that can be vital when throwing equipment or explosives.
The hand-release push-ups deviate from the traditional push-up style, introducing a two-second pause at the bottom of each repetition. This modification demands greater upper body strength and control. The three-part sprint-drag-carry simulates the need to rapidly navigate obstacles, drag a 90-pound sled, and carry a 60-pound rucksack—an actual test of a soldier’s power, agility, and endurance. The leg tuck event adds an element of advanced abdominal strength by requiring soldiers to hang from a bar and bring their knees to their chest repeatedly—a skill with applications in climbing and maneuvering in rugged terrain. Lastly, the two-mile run remains a familiar component, but it is still held to the same time standard of 17 minutes or less.
The ACFT is a more demanding and diversified evaluation than the APFT. Its design and structure directly address the physical rigors of modern warfare, emphasizing a broad spectrum of skills that range from lifting and throwing to agility and endurance. The shift from traditional exercises to real-world simulations, such as dragging a sled or carrying a rucksack, underscores the military’s recognition of the importance of practical, combat-relevant capabilities (Torres, 2023).
By adopting the ACFT as its official fitness test, the Army challenges its soldiers to meet higher standards. It provides a more accurate representation of their preparedness for the physical demands of contemporary combat scenarios (US Army, 2020). This shift recognizes that modern warfare often requires soldiers to exert themselves in ways that go beyond essential fitness; it demands strength, power, agility, and endurance in equal measure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ACFT supersedes the APFT as a more robust and pertinent measure of a soldier’s physical readiness for the challenges of modern warfare. The shift towards a test that evaluates a broader spectrum of capabilities better equips soldiers for the multifaceted demands they may encounter in combat. Though more demanding, the ACFT is an essential component of military training, ensuring that soldiers are physically fit and prepared for the unique challenges of today’s battlefield.
Reference
Torres, R. E., Heileson, J. L., Richardson, K. A., Chapman-Lopez, T. J., Funderburk, L. K., & Forsse, J. S. (2023). The Effectiveness of utilizing HRV indices as a predictor of ACFT performance outcomes. Military Medicine, usad009.
US Army. (2020). The Army combat fitness test. Lulu Press.
US Army. (2021). The official U.S. Army fitness training handbook. Lyons Press.
Loading...
