Who is Faster? BF4 vs BF1 vs BFV vs BF2042

Maybe somebody here online knows the the real-life requirements for a special forces soldier, to compare @YT_SMKGAMING  interesting BF speed analytics to real life?

Special stricter requirements are in place for load-bearing branches like infantry or artillery, which I guess would be the best benchmark for our BF soldiers running fully loaded here.  😀

Standard running requirement for a US marine in combat fitness is to run the 880 yards "Movement to Contact test" in less than 2 minutes and 45 seconds.  So like 805 meters in under 165 seconds.  So approx. 17.6 km/h.  But that is without the gear. 

Anybody aware of official test targets for soldiers fully loaded out? 

---

@CyberDyme wrote:

Maybe somebody here online knows the the real-life requirements for a special forces soldier, to compare @YT_SMKGAMING  interesting BF speed analytics to real life?

Special stricter requirements are in place for load-bearing branches like infantry or artillery, which I guess would be the best benchmark for our BF soldiers running fully loaded here.  😀

Standard running requirement for a US marine in combat fitness is to run the 880 yards "Movement to Contact test" in less than 2 minutes and 45 seconds.  So like 805 meters in under 165 seconds.  So approx. 17.6 km/h.  But that is without the gear. 

Anybody aware of official test targets for soldiers fully loaded out? 

---

---

@CyberDyme wrote:

Maybe somebody here online knows the the real-life requirements for a special forces soldier, to compare @YT_SMKGAMING  interesting BF speed analytics to real life?

Special stricter requirements are in place for load-bearing branches like infantry or artillery, which I guess would be the best benchmark for our BF soldiers running fully loaded here.  😀

Standard running requirement for a US marine in combat fitness is to run the 880 yards "Movement to Contact test" in less than 2 minutes and 45 seconds.  So like 805 meters in under 165 seconds.  So approx. 17.6 km/h.  But that is without the gear. 

Anybody aware of official test targets for soldiers fully loaded out? 

---

@CyberDyme as a former US Army Armor branch combat veteran (I was an embedded Advisor in an Iraqi Infantry company while deployed) we didn't have any specific APFT physical requirements separate from non-Combat Arms branch but the new ACFT may have changed that since I've been out. Now we do have internal branch cultural norms saying "X" time is the time you should be doing your 2 mile run, "X" number of pushups, "X" number of situps etc. or you're a bad Soldier, which is typically much more strict than non-combat arms branches.

In combat on foot I  personally never ran long distances, we normally do movement to contact either mounted or walking to the vicinity of the objective. Then you begin your assault and typically do 3-5 second rushes cover to cover if being shot at. It is hard to fight if you're exhausted from running - especially if you have on 80+ extra pounds of armor, ammo, water, etc.  I did continuously run a long way down a driveway assaulting a Ba'athist mansion but that was the exception in my tour.  I used to jest that I only ran when being shot at, and even then probably not. lol Maybe some of the Infantry Branch combat vets here can chime in with their experiences.

For Special Forces guys their normal training is rather physical, this is a good example of that: https://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-green-beret-training

@CyberDyme

---

@CyberDyme wrote:

Maybe somebody here online knows the the real-life requirements for a special forces soldier, to compare @YT_SMKGAMING  interesting BF speed analytics to real life?

Special stricter requirements are in place for load-bearing branches like infantry or artillery, which I guess would be the best benchmark for our BF soldiers running fully loaded here.  😀

Standard running requirement for a US marine in combat fitness is to run the 880 yards "Movement to Contact test" in less than 2 minutes and 45 seconds.  So like 805 meters in under 165 seconds.  So approx. 17.6 km/h.  But that is without the gear. 

Anybody aware of official test targets for soldiers fully loaded out? 

---

To be clear, for the 880m “Movement to Contact” (MTC) phase of the Combat Fitness Test (CFT), and for the entire conduct of the CFT, Marines will be in boots and utility trousers (until the “Maneuver under Fire” portion where the blouse goes back on).

That 2:45 time was the original MTC maximum score time for the youngest age group.  It is now 2:38 for the max score in the 21-25 age group.

https://www.fitness.marines.mil/Portals/211/Docs/PFT_CFT/PFT_CFT%20Standards/Table%203-3%20MTC%20Scoring%20Tables.pdf?ver=2019-01-07-111305-403

Also, it sucks.  The entire CFT is an anaerobic workout, but the MTC will really leave you winded.  Sprinting in boots and trousers will do that though…. for comparison, WR 880m is 1:42…

There is no official “full gear” standardized movement test.  This is likely deemed unnecessary since other, more general testing is already in place and the deleterious long term effects of all-out movement in full-gear that is still uniformly sized and as such, not individually ergonomic at all.

Ultimately, fighting and moving in full gear is utterly exhausting and could not be realistically maintained for long periods and would also cause a corresponding, degrading effect on combat effectiveness.

Yeah you are right @carsono311, @lzilchetl  and @ragnarok013 ,

I can see that some of the requirements for both PFT and CFT have been further toughened up also in Denmark where I served many years back.  Running in our clunky boots was something different from in a pair of Nike Air. 😀   Our company often practiced in the wet on sandy beaches and terrain,  bringing with us the MG3 with bipod and ammo was utterly exhausting just by itself.  Happy I was having a much lighter MSG-90 as my own specialty...

Our relentless drill sergeant always said something along the lines of:  Don't bother with the minimum standards, you have to score higher.  Exceeding the standard, is the standard!  😂

@CyberDyme 

Have some nostalgia then. Old mid-project picture mind you.

(in fact boxes were being taken out of the house as we were moving and i had nothing better to do than to freehand-cut the foam to fit the stock I'd just finished stuffing a full-length buffer into as boredom relief. Got rid of the navy grip and front shroud on it since then and added a SG trigger group and a proper brake with can threads, just no FA option as this is a civilian rifle. And the old stock is obviously relegated to a parts bin. Also cut the old threading and crowned/re-threaded the barrel since then).

Had a heavily modified SG1 issued for a while, loved it, this comes pretty close with 155 scenars and is a tac-driver even with ball at 600m. (scenars make first-hit at 800 fairly likely too. Not too shabby for a 80-year old system. Not using the optics in the picture mind you!)

Darn @Fringerunner ,

Wow - Speaking of the devil!  😀👍

Seems that you have modified that SG1 to be pretty close to the MSG90 we were running with.  No customization though for us, as we all had to use the same weapon.  But we had the push pin trigger pack to select fire option as we wanted.  And several parts you could adjust to fit your preference.  Like the shoulder stock was really short, but you could adjust the cheek height and length of pull.  Cannot see the type of barrel you have there, but we had a heavy muzzle weighted to negate the barrel whip. We had option to put on a suppressor and also change to a nightscope on the Weaver rail.  For ammo it was the standard 7.62x51mm NATO rounds.  Agreed also with your notion on accuracy.  With quali ammo, then its definitely a good sub MOA rifle.  😎

Those are dope weapons 👿

@Its_Travis_199Literally. 😉

(Edit: part of me fears that joke is going to woosh, but i *know* some of you will get it damnit!)

I can just imagine 🙌