British Army to introduce 'gender and age-neutral' fitness tests

At this point i'm not sure if the Army is being clever and has found out a way to weed out all the women of combat positions, or has cucked itself again and has made it easier for women to join.

No it's called being fit, which you americans probably don't have a concept of.

are the minimum standards going to be what the male or the female ones are now? because if its the former, good for them, if the latter, time to invade

They're all gonna die, so when there's none left we are all gonna die to finish their job.

Attached: 1537412126898.jpg (640x600, 60K)

Good, I’m tired of older soldiers hiding behind lax standards, 37-45 is not that fucking old, if you’re gonna be a career soldier it’s expected you maintain a physicality beyond that of the average foppish 40 year old mast civilian. Go to the fucking gym or get out and take your beer gut and your gizzard neck with you.

You must be stupid if you don't realize this just means they'll lower the level for everyone. I was in the army for 5 years. I saw first-hand, multiple times, how women are an absolute detriment to anything you're trying to accomplish. They are a burden every single mission. They literally wouldn't survive for a day alone in the wild.

>At this point i'm not sure if the Army is being clever and has found out a way to weed out all the women of combat positions

They are being clever, they are replacing the old system, which allowed standards to be lowered for women and now this new system will make that everyone will do the same training.

This is legitimately a good thing.Before they had different requirements for women. what the fuck is your problem Jow Forums

>are the minimum standards going to be what the male or the female ones are now?

Considering the tests are completely different from before, you cant make such comparison

Superior range/sight/ autoadjust for recoil ?

I think idiots aren't reading what it actually says and think it means the opposite.

Any word on what these new standards actually entail?

I was also in the army, and saw men equally worthless like that. Some women were actually quite adequate in leadership and non-footsoldier roles.

Also the female requirements were much lower.

I don;t know. If the tests are actually decently made, this is a good thing. There are plenty of 50 year olds who are far more fit and strong than the lazy 20 neet's, as are women. If they are strong enough to be up to standard, endure enough, and are healthy/driven, who the fuck cares what their age or genitalia is.

This, this means LESS women will make it, and those who do will actually be able to carry their weight

Its a good thing you braindead fucks, and I wish we applied it too, not this shit "women get to have a easier test because otherwise 90% would fail" shit

The army needs height requirements too. Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to see 5'2 midgets marching (leaping really) alongside normal size men?

invade us just fucking end us please.

If they DIDNT lower the standards then how could women and older men keep up. Maybe we assume too much from Jow Forums to understand women aren't men

NOOOooooo!
The Brexit was supposed to uncuck them!

Attached: Smile.jpg (600x600, 94K)

>neutral
>allowances

Yup. If they are bringing the female one up to match the male one then it basically means no more women in the military. If it's the other way then wtf MOD?

>Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to see 5'2 midgets marching

parade marching is literally the least important part of a military unit, and it can be solved by making parade units organised by height.

faggy britbong C O P E

still better than the broomstick Bundeswehr

Gender-neutral fitness means women have to reach the male standard.

He has 20 pounds...
I can go for a bike ride with more in my backpack for 3 hours under the midday sun with no water
I am literally more fit than all the leaf soldier fags Ive ever met
The only difference is that they give guns to these pos

The US army should do this, hell all out branches should but the best thing is the lack of age standards.

30s are not old enough to be past your prime, I know far too many career military who hit 30 or even just 27 and act like they’re too old to maintain good standards and wind up walking around like bags of ass embarrassing everyone with their guts and turkey necks and underfed chicken legs.

people mostly not reading the article, they just see a story about britain and assume its bad news lol

>If they DIDNT lower the standards then how could women and older men keep up

The standards will be put at a level that guarantees the necessary amount of input.

>gender and age neutral tests

So basically the standards will be as low as possible. You only have to be stronger than an old woman to make it into britain's front line combat.

They are clearly terrified of Putin

he's a meme flag idiot who didn't read the article , typical.

The new system will replace the system which has allowances.

The allowances are being removed, you dumb mutt

>British Army to introduce 'gender and age-neutral' fitness tests
>'gender and age-neutral' fitness tests
wtf is that even supposed to mean?

It's the Ministry of Plenty

Where are you people coming from all of a sudden?

Could go either way, it depends on what the tests consist of. They could make it harder for women for easier for men.

Here we have gender neutral tests but most women don't pass.

I can invade thee if you are a nice looking bird.

Roastie Only Battalion?

As it should be.

Those men get shunned and quit quickly or settle for a desk job. Women on the other hand keep over-estimating their own physical abilities because men will always be there to carry their backpacks for them.

What do you mean older men? Military service ends for most at like 45-50 if they’re career enlisted. You can easily maintain PT level standards at 40-50. There are professional athletes at that age who can out compete younger contemporaries, and that isn’t even being asked here. What’s being asked if you’re going to wear a uniform maintain pride in it for longer than when it’s easy.

yeah in the old version of newspeak maybe

upsub for wronghink

aimhax optics and trigger mechanisms are already real. But in regard to robotics I assume they mean exoskelletons that do most of the work so the soldier's physical attributes are less important beyond basic agility and endurance. Fighter pilots still need to be in physical shape to endure high-g loads and retain mental sharpness.

US Army had to do the same. Diversity has put so many people in jobs they don't belong that it has become dangerous the rest of the troops. Now everyone is "equal". So females and trannies can go back to jobs they are good at.

wha't's this exercise called?

Attached: 4464034-6195271-image-a-9_1537571870174.jpg (634x435, 98K)

Jow Forums's view of Britain is so far from the truth. Makes me wonder if most people on here even have clue about what's actually going on in the UK.

> I know far too many career military who hit 30 or even just 27 and act like they’re too old to maintain good standards and wind up walking around like bags of ass embarrassing everyone with their guts and turkey necks and underfed chicken legs.

Im a personal trainer who is also in the reserves, and yeah that shits fucked up
"I cant be arsed to be even somewhat physically capable anymore, im 30 now and have two kids" then they proceed to play videogames 4 hours a day/sit in a bar and drink every other day.
Its a dooming spiral too, since the more out of shape you get, the more tired you will be, causing you to do even less etc. etc.
Its why the "im just to tired from work and family to work out three times a week" shit is a selffulfilling prophecy.

The article does not say much about what the actual new standards are. Closest it gets is:

>The tests aim to more closely replicate combat scenarios by mimicking real-life tasks such as carrying casualties, moving through enemy lines and transporting equipment.

>They will include a 4km march carrying 40kg of equipment in less than 40 minutes, followed by a 2km march carrying 25kg of equipment in under 15 minutes.

>Soldiers will then have to complete a fire and move exercise in less than five minutes, followed by other exercises involving carrying heavy weights over several distances.

All that bullshit has nothing to do with fitness for a fighting force.

Glutes for the Leutnant

But a manlet or womanlet is at serious disadvantage in a fight. Their comrades-in-arms will have to keep getting the grenades down off the high shelves too.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Glutenant

Well, if my time in the American Navy is any indication there are exactly two routes
1. There are only a tiny minority of women in the military becasue they do not have the physical strength or emotional drive to meet the standard of a man
2. The standards are so fucking low that the men can get away with being unfit just so the bong military can reach its diveristy quota

Seriously, look at our standards for women. To pass without being put on the PT program for ages 20-24 it's 50 curl-ups in 2 minutes, 17 push-ups in 2 minutes, and a mile and a half run in 15:15. A fucking man who has never worked out a day in his life can do that as long as he isn't a fucking fatass.

>Giving birth to your mulatto baby amidst a Britain in Civil War.

Attached: 13560527678.png (406x384, 150K)

Yes it does, stay the fuck in shape or get the fuck out. Soldiering is a privilege not a right, if you can’t maintain a decent standard then get out.

They're lowering the requirements dipshit

that's a squat that requires zero upper body strength or form.

[citation needed]

>Soldiering is a privilege not a right
tell that to the draft board nigger

Nobody is being drafted.

>gender and age-neutral' fitness tests,
BUT THATS SEXIST.

What do you mean specifically? The ability to carry a wounded man is a pretty commonly-discussed benchmark that women generally can't reach, and it was brought up in the article as a requirement.
>"I think it is about time we upped the ante and make it equal and not make allowances for gender or age."
>not make allowances for gender
There is even an explicit accusation made by the writer that it will reduce the number of women. It's true that we don't know the effect until we see the standards, but the article is leaning towards this decision being anti-woman.

It's not like I haven't seen school standards change to make it more or less impossible for blacks to fail, and yeah you don't have to learn or understand anything. The only information we have right now is some quotes suggesting that the standards will raise, not lower. Lowering the standards only exists as a possibility only because it hasn't been implemented yet and we can't see numbers, not because of any supporting evidence in the article.

> tfw the blacks of future african invaded countries will salute british troops from the landing shore with their dicks hardened

i suppose it's gender neutral

If you don't understand that women and older men can't do what's required already then what about "gender and age neutral" would lead you to think they're making it tougher. What is it about bong military or our military for that matter leads you to think they want to exclude troops.

What percentage of bong military is female, when you see that number ask yourself if theyre gonna make it "harder"

>Afraid to have people see his flag
>Britposts to try and cope with his faggy country

Gee I wonder where this nigger is from.

The problem is that the new standards are likely shit - instead of making it harder for women to pass they will just make it so easy that everyone can pass.

Britain is a domesticated state and the soldiers are just toys anyway

Womens dont fight because if no women no reproduction

This is actually a genius move.
They know that all of their soldier deployments for the next 50 years will be nothing but police actions in muslim neighborhoods where the soldier's aren't allowed to carry lethal munitions.
This is a great way to start introducing the part of the population that lives in a shell of delusional liberalism to the business end of Muhammad's pointy stick.

praise kek

I know the birds and the bees. Citation, not speculation please.

it is a privilege to serve you country, to be seen mental and body fit to wield weapons. you entrusted with tools that can take lifes, you stand guard where millions cant because they are genetic waste.

Now it seems like a error , the Nazis should have won.

This is a decline in western civilization. When we get soft and try to be 'gender neutral,' someone stronger will take the reins of the world.

LOWEST
COMMON
DENOMINATOR

Its to lift casualties out of a cupola.

Good. I hope one of their endurance tests is a series of swift kicks between the legs, you know, 'cause equal anatomy and the bad guys tend to be bad guys.

Either the men accept their place as submissive in society, literally allowing themselves to be kicked in the nuts, or they say 'hey fuckwit, it took us 50 years but we just remembered we're fucking men'

If a few kicks in the nads won't do it, nothing will.

do you read the title

they will make woman take same tests as men, they will not lower the standarts instead of woman having to do half a push and run 20 meters, they will have to do same as man, this means woman finna gonna get btfo, like no women in millitary

hahaha this 1000 times

Attached: 1526856427113.jpg (640x778, 187K)

>be reddit
>dont know psysiological differences between the sexes

Probably not a lot of males want to join to fight to protect the Big Brother, so they need fresh meat.

>posts pic of Pat
>gender-neutrality: achieved

Good
For
You

Islamic Socialist People's Republic of Englistan

strengthens the tea-making muscles

We said the same shit and look at us now. Its the volume in the apartment trick, they'll try this, show that nobody can pass and go right the other direction because all of a sudden its international news and sexist and whatever else.

There isn't a single shred of evidence that any of our countries wants to actually make their military stronger. At best this is a ploy

Oh how progressive. This should work out swell for actual combat.

>be leaf
>goes on assumptions rather than evidence
You can provide me with information on what the these new standards are too if you like. Either/or.

If they're not lowering standards, this is a good thing

They don't say if the standards are changing in the article... so they're probably being lowered