Not the oldest one on here by any stretch of the imagination, I went through in 1980, we jumped C-123s.

Female Black Hats ran wherever they wanted, the instructors broke the students down into fast and slow groups, the female students ALL went into the slow group.

Men had to do pull-ups and push-ups, women did bent arm hangs and female push-ups, knees on the ground. The females PTed in a separate group, usually away from us.

I guess they must have gotten a parachute that was easier to pull a two-riser slip, cause they sure failed to meet the standards as they were explained to us.

Longest formation run I ever did was over 8 miles back in 1978, we ran from Sicily DZ back to the far end of the Division Area. Lots of hills, and accordion effect.

TR

Roger, same for us in '80. Girls and Cadets ran in one formation, everybody else in another. Lapped several times.

I am hearing/reading that the 82nd no longer is the ball busting unit it once was. Being a civilian who should keep his mouth shut since I know little about the 82nd, I have to ask: have standards changed inre: enlisting in the 82nd.

Have the standards of the 82nd been compromised?

(I am gonna regret asking this question.)

I went to BAC in 1990. I remember a separate formation for females but I can't remember about the cadets.

I say Air-Assault is a lot harder as least it was in 7th I.D. (L). Females had to do the same ruck and runs as males. I can't remember how many females started, but only one finished and got her wings in my class.

I went to BAC in June of '90, and there were separate female running groups. Since I went as a cadet, I can say with confidence that we were not our own formation, nor were we put with the females. I was actually let down by the PT, and a buddy and I did our own PT after duty hours. In fact, we got yelled at by a Black Hat one evening because we were running on the track that circles the towers 'without supervision'.

Can confirm what Razor said. BAC in June 1988 for me. Went as a cadet. Males in one formation, females in another. We never lapped them though. They always took the short cut at the 34 ft. towers.

BAC, Sep. 1993, females and males were in one PT formation. Females did regular push ups (not as many as us, but they weren't on their knees), but they did do a different pull up: one with their legs on the ground about 3 feet in front of them. Their bar was about 3 feet off of the ground.

The runs were pathetic: 9 min. per mile pace (not that I snuck a watch or anything.....).

So, somewhere between 90 and 93 a change occurred.

Roster Number 52
 

March of 2003 All req's were the same. Roster Number 52 was the only female that made it.

Ryno out

How pathetic. Listening to these stories about the separation of females and "slow" groups. Absolute B.S.!! I have seen old Warriors with more scars running laps around the youngsters more than once in PR. When I went out to tech school (MP school) in TX the instructors had quite a few females that were truly pathetic. They were forever dropping back and getting in the vans. I still don't understand why they let these women stay in. How usefull is someone who can't even do a three mile run??

It is kind of sad. I read a couple of other Army sites, and one of the threads that constantly picks back up is the eternal "I have a soldier who fails tape every time, but he/she is a good soldier and passes his PT test... how can I cheat the system to keep him/her?" To which, invariably, a hundred people respond saying things like, "if he gets a 213 on his PT test, he meets the standard, and that's all that matters," "some people just aren't built to be skinny," and my favorite, "he's so good at his job... it's not fair to chapter him just because he's overweight."

Last I saw, we were overmanned and exceeding recruiting goals. Why the fuck is this still happening?

Hell, if one of my guys got 213 on his PT test he'd be gone......skinny, fat, short, tall........GONE

mp

If one of my guys got a 213 on a PT test I’d hand him my .45 with one round and tell him to “Do the right thing.�

I do not even desire to discuss this topic. I've never been in a unit that would allow such a disgrace wear the uniform.

TS

Well TS's....
 

If the minimum wasn't good enough then they wouldn't have them. :rolleyes: Believe me...I've heard that before.:o

Under LTC Toney, if you scored a 213 on a PT test...your ass was fired! Especially if you were an officer.

I've scored a whole lot higher coming back from Hays street drunk of my ass and I even threw up on the two mile run.

I wouldn't do it today though!:D

I ran into a company commander at Ft. Jackson last year that was overweight and failed the tape test because he had a skinny neck. He was flagged and couseled by his battalion commander.

Strange thing is, he consistently scored 300 on his APFT and qualified for Ft. Jackson's team at the Army 10 miler in DC a month after I met him.

That ht/wt and tape test is not really indicative of anything. He didn't look fat in uniform either.

CC: I agree that the tape test is b.s. I have seen plenty of people fail it that could out do me any day of the week (I am a scrawney little shit). But if the military is truly concerned with how people perform, they should be getting true body- fat measurements and assess how the soldiers actually look in their uniforms as well as whether they meet the fitness standards. There are alcoholic smokers out there that run two miles faster than I do, but after they run those two miles they are DONE.
I am SOOOO tired of hearing "he's a good soldier, sailor, airman.....so even if he looks like a bag of shit in his uniform and can't run two miles nonstop we need to keep him". I can afford to lose someone who cannot run to my posistion to help me when we are getting attacked because I don't want anyone around who can't do more than his job.