What's the ideal military body?

[Nil]

Do those breasts contain ceramic plates? They look hard enough to be bullet proof.

 

[Conrad]

I'm definitely going to agree with the "a little bit of everything" since small guys and big guys both serve their part.

A prime example is that my old man still has all of his tiger stripe from when he served in the navy. I'm 5'6" and 135lbs and can't put any of it on except the pants. The pants fit my waist, are about 2" too short, and my shoulders are too broad to even attempt the shirt.

So it has A LOT to do with strength/weight ratio and mental strength- he's the most bullheaded SOB I've ever met.

 

[old64mb]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

Well it's true. Google it if you doubt me.

The link you presented is based on the old HHS concept that body fat was everything; the military followed hook line and sinker into that, which is one reason why cigarette sales boomed. Changed a bit from my understanding, but there's still a solid bias towards rail thin (which also looks better in a uniform) than buffed. I still remember running a couple of 6 minute miles around the wheezing thin guys of my unit during our annual testing, but they ended up scoring higher than I did all-in in because of BMI.

Different MOSes require different sizes. Can't be a pilot above a certain height, for instance, nor can you serve on a submarine. The Navy Seals I worked with I never saw eat, just drink an awful lot of coffee, and while there was tons of endurance you'd have not noticed them in the gym if they were lifting.

But I think the proper answer for the 'ideal' military body is one that can look perfect in a standard issue dress uniform, which isn't easy to do if you have any sort of gut. Speaking of which, the Presidential honor guard only accepted those who were above 6' 2" in the days when I knew guys in it. Except for their XO, who was 5' 8".

 

[HomerJ]

Mario Van Peebles

Jean Claude Van Damme. The best soldiers are named Van. And can do sidekicks. This is assuming you're talking about infantry. As mentioned above, ideally pilots would be short. Not much room in the cockpit and increasing the distance from the heart to the brain is a disadvantage for pulling g's. Also helps to be muscular. I think "Maverick" from Top Gun isn't too far from reality.

 

[tiger02]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Interesting - the american special forces seem to be looking now, according to some of the articles that appear in media, for people who are more marathoners.

Look at current mission requirements and you'll see why. Lots of need for guys who can go 24 hours and longer, but can drive to get there.

Holy ****, Slim wins the thread.


PS agree, short helps bullets miss. 5'7" here, and no holes that don't belong.

 

[macuser3of5]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

Not at all. The air force for example, prefers all their men whether 5'0 or 6'2 to have a 32" waist. These are the kinds of things i'm asking about.
That might be for pilots, cuz trust me, there are few air force dudes with 32" waists (many are friends, so no hate!).

 

[SoCal2NYC]

 

[Go Surface]

^Yummy.

 

[Antonio Centeno]

There is no ideal military body. Each service has their own standards and qualifications. To be perfect from the US Army does not guarantee anything with an Airforce recruiter.

 

[Grayland]

With the situation in the middle east, I'd be willing to bet almost anyone who wants in the armed forces has a body that branch can work with.

 

[Mblova]

I don't think there is an "idea" military body. This is because there are people who are required to be very fit and have muscular indurence and intelligence and then there are those that spend a majority of their time in an office/administrative setting. Thats why for the physical fitness tests there is a passing standard and then there are eve higher standards to get into BUD/S, Spec op, spec war.. etc. IF you are going infantry you need to be fit, need to have muscular endurance and you need to be able to take a beating. Whether it is cold, warm, hot, muggy, rainy or snow.
As for pilots, I think there is a height requirement that you cannot be over 6'3 as you may not be able to fit into the cockpit/seat. I may be wrong on that, not 100% sure.

 

[brittain]

no offense to any USAF guys here, but when discussing military fitness, one probably shouldn't use the USAF as your measuring stick.

RLTW

 

[Mblova]

Originally Posted by brittain

no offense to any USAF guys here, but when discussing military fitness, one probably shouldn't use the USAF as your measuring stick.

RLTW

Unless you talkin PJ's

 

[ProphetHammer]

Originally Posted by Mblova

Unless you talkin PJ's
Or CCs or a few other trades

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. A mate of mine in the Air Force can run 2.4k's faster than anyone I've ever met in the Army, and is still slightly slower than another mate of mine in the Navy (a Submariner of all things).

 

[Bill Smith]

I would think armed services the world over would prefer endurance over bulk with a high pain threshold.