995
posted ago by DeepMind ago by DeepMind +995 / -0

I know the article is old.

Anyone served/serving who can comment on this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20201112004544/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5392363/Army-wont-require-recruits-throw-grenade-far-enough.html

  • US Army will no longer require recruits to show adequate hand grenade skills
  • Change is being made because many enlistees 'can’t throw it far enough'
  • Recruits also won't be required to pass land navigation course to graduate
  • Army's redesign of Basic Combat Training is aimed at instilling more discipline
  • Many on Twitter used the development to attack influx of female enlistees
  • But the US Army denied that the change had anything to do with gender
Comments (95)
sorted by:
52
marishiten 52 points ago +52 / -0

Wow.

You know what's funny? The grenade range is what really woke me up that the shit we were doing was super fucking DUPER dangerous.

I was young and was just kind of going along with it all. Didn't think too much about the weight of actions until the grenade range when the Drill Sergeant pulled everyone in the platoon aside one by one and looked them dead in the fuck eyes and said "if you fuck this up, you'll not only kill yourself, but you'll kill me and everyone around you. I'll be ON TOP of you the entire time. If you fumble or freeze up, I'll take that grenade from you, throw it, then I'll beat the ever loving shit out of you. And I'm allowed to."

You only need to throw it like 30 meters. It's not that far. You throw it then you duck. You don't watch where it landed. It's not that hard.

Land Nav was the best part of basic. You got left alone for the most part and you were allowed to figure shit out with your battle buddy.

I don't see how removing these things gives more discipline. If anything, it takes it away since it removes the critical thinking skills and weight of your actions and how they affect others.

What's next? Are they going to remove the requirement of being CS gassed? Are only males going to be forced to be CS'd? People with asthma get a waiver? Are they going to remove the 25 pull up requirement? What about 20 min 2 mile requirement (I don't remember what you had to do to finish the run). What about the 20k march in full ruck? Can you opt out because your feet hurt?

31
slag 31 points ago +31 / -0

Shooting is too hard. No more pew pew qualification.

16
TonsOfSalt 16 points ago +16 / -0

Biden said nobody needs 30 rounds anyway.

5
slag 5 points ago +5 / -0

Just get a shotgun.

2
bubadmt 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's gotta be double barreled.

1
2SmoothGQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Point it in the air and fire two blasts.

2
throwawayicanremembe 2 points ago +2 / -0

You say this as a joke but somehow my friend joined the Navy and separated after his initial contract and however many years they make you stay in the reserves without having ever fired a weapon.

0
ShampocalypseWOW 0 points ago +5 / -5

Honestly, there's no point in having most people qualify in basic training. Most of them will never touch a weapon once they get to their units because their jobs aren't combat-related. In reality, if ever they were needed to hold a rifle or machinegun, there's be enough prep time to train them up and they'd be better off because the knowledge and skills would be fresh. The level of training they get in basic is practically worthless. Rifle bullshit takes up a lot of time and costs a lot of money in basic because of the way they have to run it. Cutting that and grenades out (practically no one will ever use a grenade in their career and you stop training/qualifying on them after basic entirely unless you're combat arms) would save a TON of money, free up more supplies for actual combat troops, and would allow Drill Sergeants more time to properly soldierize everyone. As it is now, most don't get properly broken in and made into soldiers due to lack of time and distractions like rifle marksmanship. I think it would be more than adequate to give the troops rifles and have them learn to assemble and disassemble, do drill and ceremony, and learn how to zero and do other things like dime and washer drills. Shooting those ancient weapons won't really help them that much.

5
preferredfault 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think the point is to be prepared for anything, AND to pick the best people that can at least pass those tests, because if soldiers known weaknesses are things like can't throw a grenade for shit, enemies can take advantage of that. The throwing grenade drill isn't just about you throwing a grenade at the enemy, but also about you throwing a grenade the enemy has thrown at you. And in a surprise attack war/invasion, we may not have time to train people on the fly, nor enough people to train people. Not to mention that if you don't train your soldiers from the start, and a big war comes along and the enemy targets those who train people, you start losing the capability to train people altogether. if we reached that we needed to start more thoroughly training people only when the SHTF, this poses a problem, because again, if people don't even have the strength to throw a grenade that far, that's an indication in lacking of other abilities. If they can't throw a grenade as far as needed, then how far can they carry another soldier? How many soldiers would die on the battlefield because their buddies can't adequately move them to be evacuated if they're injured? Especially where seconds and minutes matter. The point of a volunteer military is to weed out and pick the better candidates. That's a luxury of peace time, that won't be available if there needs to be a build up during war time. And the more cream of the crop soldiers you have as a starting point, the better, because it means you won't need as many nobodies drafted. Now maybe there's places where we can retool and focus training and remove some of the fat, but I don't think grenades will ever be made obsolete, front line troops always have the possibility of facing them, and as soon as the enemy knows that's an armies weakness, they will exploit it. You may not need to throw a grenade 25 meters to be safe, but the closer it is, the louder it is, don't throw it fast enough and the aftershock rattles troops, rogue shrapnel, loss of hearing, etc. And you also need to have people not have the first time they see a grenade is one that landed next to them from the enemy. It's an oh shit moment either way, but reaction times matter. Grenades don't generally have long fuses, but the further you throw also correlates with how fast you can throw, which means if that fuse is about ready to pop and you hurryingly throw that grenade away from you, every meter it gets before it goes off, can make a difference. Even the difference between hearing damage. Grenades aren't just killing devices, they're also disorientation devices. Being deafened on the battlefield can be very crippling, and the last think you want is people pinned down in the thick of it, unable to see or hear.

-2
ShampocalypseWOW -2 points ago +1 / -3

I was going to try addressing all your points (which are HILARIOUSLY misinformed), but it's obvious you've never served and have no idea what basic training is like... or what weapons are like.

1
preferredfault 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well I specifically only touched on grenades. Which is the original topic. I didn't say anything about rifle training. The point is, people should be able to throw a grenade a good distance. Maybe not everyone will ever come across a grenade, or even fire a gun in combat, but they are still in the military, and the military needs all of its people to be capable, because if the military were to ever suffer massive losses, it will need people to pick up the slack, and you don't want that guy picking up the slack to be a guy who couldn't even throw a grenade 10 meters.

The guy filing papers needs to be as reasonably capable as the rest, because if war breaks out and they're under attack, he's no longer just the guy filing papers. He's the guy who has to pick up a gun and fight too, or the guy who replaces the guy who died fighting. The better integrity we have at all levels, the better they will be at taking over duties of the fallen when losses mount up. Otherwise, once you lose a lot of your front line cream of the crop soldiers (with not all of them being soo much cream of the crop, which makes losing easier), all you're left to rely on are the ones who are essentially civilians with a military rank.

There's no excuse to not have a volunteer military be higher quality. if a brutal global war breaks out and a draft comes along, quality requirements are going to drop fast anyways. But the better our military is at that juncture, the better we will fare as a country in the initial conflicts.

If the US is ever invaded and we're down to trench warfare to hold lines, you don't want the guy next to you who can barely throw a grenade with 2 seconds left on the fuse. Grenades have a fragmentation range of about 10 meters. How far do you think a grenade thrown by a weakling will travel in under 2 seconds? Not very far. The farther the better.

And they're not even doing this obstructed. They're doing it in a controlled environment. Person is standing, ready to throw. Now imagine how far you can throw if you're on your knees or laying on the ground. Even the guy who did 30 meters in training, won't do that under those conditions. But that's the point. The people who perform well in training, will likely perform somewhat worse in the real world due to circumstances on the battlefield. So the people who performed poorly, will perform even more poorly in real world situations. So the guy who could barely throw a grenade in training, could actually end up doing more harm than good, whether he's throwing them or dealing with incoming enemy grenades.

Imagine the guy who could barely throw a grenade, lands next to him, he tosses it, only it's such a weak pitch that surprise, he killed 10 people because he's now increased its effectiveness because it airbursts right above friendlies. Or he throws a grenade, doesn't throw it far enough, and not only wastes it, not only gives away his position and others, but maybe also either kills friendlies or at the very least, sets off a big boom next to friendlies.

And grenade throwing says a lot about ability. The guy who can't throw a grenade as far, also probably can't carry a gun and other equipment for as long. Lacking in capability in one area, can indicate lacking in many other areas.

You definitely don't want these people dealing with grenades when you're standing next to them: https://youtu.be/Eh8QYoD0n2s?t=143

And you wouldn't even want them in the military in the first place.

2
strongdefense 2 points ago +2 / -0

You are missing the greater purpose. Grenade and rifle qualification teach focus, attention to detail and accountability for one's actions. It takes patience and persistence. Things soldiers need to have to be effective, hell things everyone needs to be successful.

-2
ShampocalypseWOW -2 points ago +1 / -3

You are missing the greater purpose. Grenade and rifle qualification teach focus, attention to detail and accountability for one's actions.

lol, nope! They're boxes to be checked, nothing more. The Drill Sergeants don't give a shit about the nonsense you're talking about. They just want to pass as many recruits off on their AIT instructors as they can. They're judged on numbers, not quality.

It takes patience and persistence.

Not really. It takes not being a retard.

1
strongdefense 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, as a 14yr DAV, I am entitled to my opinion.

1
ShampocalypseWOW 1 point ago +1 / -0

DAV?

1
strongdefense 1 point ago +1 / -0

Disabled American Veteran

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Honestly, there's no point in having most people qualify in basic training.

If we're picking and choosing, the same can be said for pt. Some of the reasoning why acft is now supposed to be job related, as opposed to universal pt standards.

I think there's value in basic qualification and marksmanship, not sure if I'd want the average Joe being less than worthless if they have to grab a weapon. The ambush on Lynch' s unit is maybe a cautionary tale.

This also reeks far less of cost efficiency, and more about physically weak or otherwise inept recruits (also dropping standards to suit agendas).

1
ShampocalypseWOW 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we're picking and choosing, the same can be said for pt. Some of the reasoning why acft is now supposed to be job related, as opposed to universal pt standards.

Absolutely. And that's why they're back to reviewing the whole damn thing to see if it even makes sense. Standardized PT is stupid and usually counter-productive, mainly because you're always going to be setting the bar too low for most people. The ACFT is no exception, nor is the APFT (of course). The reality is that standardized tests are a terrible way of measuring the fitness of a highly diverse population of people doing a wide range of jobs. The fitness standards should be set be set at the battalion level and PT should be overseen by company grade officers to ensure the standards are being met. This would be how they did it prior to the APFT being introduced. This would also require far more leadership, integrity, ingenuity, and dedication than most officers posses, so it's not much more realistic than the standardized tests. But at least we wouldn't be deluding ourselves into believing we can reduce people to mere numbers and expect uniform results.

I think there's value in basic qualification and marksmanship

There is, just not at the basic training stage of a soldier's career. They can learn plenty when they get to their unit, and it will be far more efficient and safer.

The ambush on Lynch' s unit is maybe a cautionary tale.

It's certainly a cautionary tale, just not for rifle marksmanship.

This also reeks far less of cost efficiency

Have you ever been to basic training??

and more about physically weak or otherwise inept recruits (also dropping standards to suit agendas).

Not sure what marksmanship has to do with strength. I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down. I'm not talking about dropping all rifle marksmanship for everyone across the board forever and just shortening basic training. I'm saying put that burden on their gaining units, where it already is anyway, and spend the time and resources on more important things in basic training, like more effective soldierizing methods. Do you have any idea how much time is wasted just moving recruits to and from the range? Or how much time is wasted having all those recruits sitting around waiting to use the range? It eats up an entire training day just to have each recruit go out and shoot 40 rounds. Tell me how cost efficient that is...

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have you ever been to basic training?? Do you have any idea how much time is wasted just moving recruits to and from the range? Or how much time is wasted having all those recruits sitting around waiting to use the range?

Yes. Ah. I see the disconnect, you're thinking in terms of time savings/ efficiency for the generating force (actually from the perspective of the recruit as well). Big army could care less about that, aside from filling spaces slightly faster. I'm talking about $$, in which that calculus (outside of training resources e.g. fuel, ammunition, etc) is honestly laughable compared to other programmatic concerns and budgeting decisions. Even after we stopped Grow The Army, and started downsizing (nothing like the paucity of earlier peace dividends though) there's still relatively substantial funding for readiness and new toys. Basic training expenses are unlikely to dent those decisions. If you care deeply about efficiency, the military or its gov partners/masters are institutionally opposed or at least blinded, even at the billion dollar levels.

The idea of better "soldierizing" is interesting but underspecified. Does drill and ceremony matter in the long run? Traditions/history etc. If it's just training for a job, then break everyone up based on contract and start advanced individual training early. That would be optimal and efficient. You'd eliminate the collective experience of having the volunteer force having gone through some kind of shared experience regardless of career (or maybe the experience is more minimal than it already is). Folks have advocated this position before. Maybe that's where it ends up. Maybe that's where it has to end up with the physical (and arguably emotional) erosion of the able bodied population. We have more human veal showing up stunted and unprepared by their lifestyle.

0
BingHard 0 points ago +1 / -1

Cute, but stupid and wrong.

1
ShampocalypseWOW 1 point ago +1 / -0

Great argument, civilian.

1
BingHard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jesus Christ. You know one day you might realize things are done the way the are done for a fucking reason. But sure I bet a specialist who has never deployed knows best... Pull your head out of your ass.

15
RedditIsCommunist 15 points ago +15 / -0

My father was drafted for the Korean War. His hearing was permanently damaged because some loser next to him sissy-threw a grenade in grenade training and it landed very close to the edge of the trench they were in. (At that time they were training to throw grenades from a trench apparently.)

So of course it goes off right next to the edge of the trench and he ends up with permanent hearing damage, even if the fragments didn’t hit anyone.

If they’re dropping grenade training then they must be getting so many unsuitable people that grenades are too dangerous for too many recruits to handle without killing everyone.

2
Emper 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is probably one of the most dangerous things you do. I wouldn't want to train new recruits in throwing live grenades for all the marbles in the ocean.

1
RedditIsCommunist 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’d think they could at least train them on throwing inert dummy grenades to make sure they can throw stuff.

5
JESUSJUGS 5 points ago +5 / -0

That’s probably the point. They need our troops to be much worse than China’s.

4
Myzlplix 4 points ago +4 / -0

Check out Angry Cops youtube channel.

Hes pretty good at calling this shit out in a humorous way

3
LindaSarsourCunt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Same with me. I was just an 18-year-old kid who was having a blast in basic training. It's one thing to pull a trigger and have a projectile move at high speeds to hit a target, but it's another to toss a grenade knowing that if you don't, that's it for you. Also, the DS flat out said he would fuck you up if you threw it like a bitch.

23
GabeC1997 23 points ago +23 / -0

I'm sorry what?! Being able to throw a grenade far enough that it doesn't kill you seems kind of important!

6
spelunking_librator 6 points ago +6 / -0

it's not about distance, it's about feelings

2
GabeC1997 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, they're certainly going to be feeling something when they accidentally blast their leg off...

1
DeepMind [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's all about social distance these days.

20
OrangeLivesMatterCA 20 points ago +21 / -1

FUUUUCK the army is completely dead hahaha.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
OrangeLivesMatterCA 3 points ago +4 / -1

Dude idgaf about this country anymore. People call me a glowie because I’m willing to do what has to be done, but the amount of cowards... My family owns a ranch in Mexico. We’re going to construct a few homes for all the other relatives. I’ve got a place to escape to so eh.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
OrangeLivesMatterCA 2 points ago +3 / -1

I served the country... gave em six years and was going to school for criminal justice to become law enforcement and to move into a government job. To try and be the change from within but go ahead and pretend like you know me. Mexican President is still fighting the corruption and is doing much better at it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
OrangeLivesMatterCA 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thats why I said the military sucks cock. im not fighting for a country where the ppl are too scared to do anything,

4
aconcernedtroll 4 points ago +4 / -0

You're still missing the point. Weak military stands between angry people and the criminals in DC. What happens next?

19
deleted 19 points ago +20 / -1
11
deadset 11 points ago +11 / -0

yeah the army fitness requirements seem pretty sad.

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
9
Red37 9 points ago +9 / -0

They are changing the requirements of the new test because women still can’t pass it.

5
Aluminoti 5 points ago +5 / -0

If vindman is any representation they are pretty bad Colonel Sanders could probably out run him

4
FucKamala 4 points ago +4 / -0

As former Army infantry, i agree.

2
peltast 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought that that was Air Force?

2
TonsOfSalt 2 points ago +2 / -0

What about subdivisions like the Rangers?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
11
bigmikesballsack 11 points ago +11 / -0

The lone Jihadi, stuck in his trench, about to feel the might of the US Army.

Only to be faces with a bunch of fat Latino women and trannies.

7
deadset 7 points ago +7 / -0

We're gonna spread freedom and turning Mohammad into Mohama'am.

11
deadset 11 points ago +11 / -0

The upper body fitness testing baselines for women is significantly less than for men. Though there probably are more fags and Chelsea Manning-types joining looking for career advancement.

9
MAGA1775 9 points ago +9 / -0

Definitely has to do with gender and the influx of soy boys joining the military

Our military is soon to be just another useless social justice tool. China will love that.

6
RedditIsCommunist 6 points ago +6 / -0

From what I’ve heard, most of the military in Europe is already just a Marxist jobs program.

9
Led31 9 points ago +9 / -0

Of course it’s because most women can’t throw a grenade far enough. Duhhh

7
Pepedepede 7 points ago +7 / -0

This part got me...

"Army's redesign of Basic Combat Training is aimed at instilling more discipline".

Rather than instilling obedience... HOW ABOUT YOU MAKE SOME FUCKING SENSE?

Then people will follow you. Current commander in thief is a criminal and people know it.

7
captainmundane 7 points ago +7 / -0

I went through two years ago. It was babied the fuck down. I would say a majority of the young recruits just suck. The older recruits, including women, were in better shape and had better work ethic. And it was completely demoralizing to see those young fucks get pushed through. Trash.

6
0561 6 points ago +6 / -0

Same thing with police departments especially in liberal cities.

Lowering fitness qualifications, education requirements, a little bit of criminal history or drug use is OK now.

A lot of police departments only require you to hit on target %70 of the time to qualify with a pistol. If they can only get 7 out of 10 at a gun range imagine how they would shoot in a high stress situation.

6
leanpocket 6 points ago +6 / -0

Soy and low testosterone are reducing our men to boys.

Source: Dr. Fauci baseball throw at the Washington Nationals game. That was the most pitiful throw a "man" could ever do.

5
H0tCar1z 5 points ago +5 / -0

There were 3 things that happened that told me "we are fucked" as a country.

1- When they started lowering standards in the military. 2- When spanking your kids became basically outlawed. 3- When children started getting arrested for "bullying" instead of parents teaching their kids to fight back.

After that, we started seeing "safe spaces" and "gender pronouns" and all that other bullshit. That was the beginning of the "cry baby" and "victim mentality" snowflakes generation.

5
TEXinLA 5 points ago +5 / -0

What could possibly go wrong?????????????????

5
Red37 5 points ago +5 / -0

How do you get more discipline by removing hand grenades and land nav, both of which require extreme amounts of discipline to do correctly?

3
Trilby 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, we don't throw good. It's true!

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
RedditIsCommunist 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s more of an upper body strength issue. I’m not sure I could throw a grenade 30m right now because I’m so out of shape and not in good health, but I’m not that young anymore either. But this is part of why someone my age isn’t accepted as a recruit. Just wait until some SJWs start calling this “ageist” and demand the old folks get recruited as infantry grunts.

3
Trilby 3 points ago +3 / -0

I always thought it was a difference in the construction of men's and women's shoulders, but strength is surly a big part of it.

5
sometimesme 5 points ago +5 / -0

it's 3 things all at once:

  • shoulders as you say
  • upper body strength is only 40% of mens
  • elbows on women splay out so their arms dont constantly bump into their hips. a surefire way to tell a tranny is check his elbows. if they don't bow out at all, it's a dude. they don't do surgery for that
2
RedditIsCommunist 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hadn’t thought of that, but I know there are some non-obvious differences between men and women. Like for example, according to research I’ve read women effectively have a wider field of view and men have a narrower one and it has something to do with how dispersed the fovea is. That means women should be better at spotting threats earlier than men, but men would be better at something else like maybe aiming at details. There are also differences in visual processing like this https://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

Maybe the underhand pitching in women’s softball has something to do with the shoulder thing you’re talking about.

1
DeepMind [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting. Definitely written before full blown marxists takeover.

1
Trilby 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting! That's a good reason why a man and a woman can make a good team. But throwing a grenade together would be tricky.

3
fdagasfd 3 points ago +3 / -0

But the US Army denied that the change had anything to do with gender

They always lie about changing standards for women, it's weird. There was a scandal years ago where women were able to perform 40-60% of the load carrying requirements, the army just blatantly lied about it to the public and then got caught and then said it wasn't that big a deal.

3
Fine_Kentucky_Jenkum 3 points ago +3 / -0

“ Army's redesign of Basic Combat Training is aimed at instilling more discipline”

i.e., more brainwashing and ideological reinforcement...

Welcome to the future, muhfuggahs...

3
He_Who_Speakith 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes lots of discipline and zero field skills so you get killed in actual combat.. 🙄

Almost like they are taking learning from the CCP to make our army weaker.

2
LookingGlass 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, there go's our military. Iv seen vids of the doing deep throat challenges so why not.

2
Slickrick941 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can only speak on the happenings at ft Benning and infantry osut, but no one there had a problem on grenade day. And we had ALOT of 17-18 year olds that are "gen z"

Probably cutting it out of non combat arms mos training. Which is ridiculous, but those jobs are female heavy and the dudes there aren't impressive either. The new ACFT is already on the chopping block too

2
FucKamala 2 points ago +2 / -0

Of course they can't throw a 1 pound grenade. Military recruiting a bunch of Liberals these days and they all have jello arms. It's not hard. Drop the pin. Throw the grenade. For fuck sake

2
VinCarver 2 points ago +2 / -0

There goes some battle drill training too lol

2
shill273 2 points ago +2 / -0

that's nothing. in our military you get 10 practice rounds througout basic training (spending cuts), after which you're ready for war..

2
Nimblenavigator1 2 points ago +2 / -0

What’s the goal here? Gradually reduce the training, skills, competency, institutional knowledge of our armed services? Conveniently would make things much easier for China 🤔

2
SendThemBackToCanada 2 points ago +2 / -0

Stormtroopers don't need that much of a training.

2
BroadSunlitUplands 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s the Deep State’s military. Fucking around breaking things in the middle east does precisely fuck all to benefit normal Americans, unless they happen to work in a munitions factory or something.

2
acasper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Army should lead the way by banning firearms too.

2
Trooph-Hurts 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why do they take away all of the best skills!

2
Crappydatum 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fortunately our enemies will appreciate our inclusion and fair mindedness and resolve not to throw Their grenades at us. Or not

1
PatriotSkorzeny 1 point ago +1 / -0

Globalists castrating the United States military. A person sworn to defend the Constitution had to approve this change.

Traitor.

1
Dialectic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Seems like a bad call but I've never been in so I don't really know

1
Aluminoti 1 point ago +1 / -0

I honestly didn't know they still threw grenades by hand

1
TeeBP 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol by discipline they mean they wants weakass servants who won't question their shitty orders.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
andrewjackson45 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn't even realize people still threw grenades by hand

-1
LordCommissarYarrick -1 points ago +0 / -1

I'm gonna need a bigger horn...