Height Requirement in U.S. Armed Forces

[Oddlife]

Hey all,

Was there a height requirement in any of the non-specialized branches of the
armed forces during WWII? Being on the short side (under 5'6"), myself, I've
always wondered if the military made any accomodations for shorter stature
people in terms of assignment (e.g., tunnel rats in Vientam). Is there a
height requirement in the present armed forces?

- Paul

[Dennis Low]

I am not sure about the U.S Army, but we have height requirements for 'short
side ' people to be in tanks. I guess it would be more comfortable.

Sgt Dennis
Anti-Armour Section Commander
Singapore Army

[Cavbygod3]

Paul,
yes, there is a minimum height requirement today. i don't know off hand what
it is, but i should be able to find out easy enough on monday morning. i will
try to find out, and post the answer at that time.
was there a height requirement in world war ii? good question....

john b

[Vince Staffo]

I had 4 Uncles who were all around 5'4" and served in W.W.II!
Of the 4 one was a tailgunner in a B-26. This was one job where a short
person was used as it was pretty cramped. I believe another position that a
short person was preferred was the ball turret gunner on B-17s.

[casita]

I agree. Being short and slim was best for any confined space eg: air
gunners and i suppose tank crews and maybe on a sub.

[GERARD]

In article <74fst3$2...@dgs.dgsys.com>, cavb...@aol.com (Cavbygod3) wrote:

> was there a height requirement in world war ii? good question....

In one book about the 442 RCT and 100th Battalion there is a fine picture
of the the supposed shortest soldier in the US Army, he is 4'9" who wears
specially made infantry boots. He is seen standing attention to his
commanding gerneral at 6'3". If there is a minimum height for a US Army
infantryman, then it sure must be minimal.

For the US Navy there probably would be something restricting submariner's
heights.

[Rob Davis]

for email reply remove MAPSON from address

> armed forces during WWII? Being on the short side (under 5'6"), myself, I've
> always wondered if the military made any accomodations for shorter stature

In the RAF, those who volunteered for aircrew and who were of
less than average height were often selected for training as air
gunners. This because the power operated gun turrets were a
tight fit for the air gunner inside them.

Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489

[M.J.Powell]

In article <74hpg8$c...@dgs.dgsys.com>, Rob Davis <r...@MAPSON.elsham.foob
ar.co.uk> writes

>for email reply remove MAPSON from address
>
>> armed forces during WWII? Being on the short side (under 5'6"), myself, I've
>> always wondered if the military made any accomodations for shorter stature
>
>In the RAF, those who volunteered for aircrew and who were of
>less than average height were often selected for training as air
>gunners. This because the power operated gun turrets were a
>tight fit for the air gunner inside them.

May I change the thread slightly?

I've noticed in photographs of US Army units in WW II, the very high
percentage of infantrymen who wore glasses, much higher than in British
units. Reason?

Mike

--
M.J.Powell.

[Cavbygod3]

agreed, i think the standard was lowered (pardon the pun) for wartime
conscription, i have neglected to check on this issue. i will in the near
future though. now i'm really intrigued.....

john b

[efr...@mocha.memphis.edu]

"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
> May I change the thread slightly?

That's practically unheard of around here!

> I've noticed in photographs of US Army units in WW II, the very high
> percentage of infantrymen who wore glasses, much higher than in British
> units. Reason?

Poor eyesight? (Couldn't resist. . .)

I've never noticed that; it would be interesting if it
were true.

Ed Frank

[kc8hgt]

Perhaps one reason could be: A good percentage of infantrymen were simple
people. By that I mean hard working blue collar types; farmers, and factory
workers. Just before the US involvment in the war the economicc state of
the country was such that most of these people couldn't afford proper
medical care (ie. . .eyecare). When these men entered the service it could
have been their first time at an eye exam. I am purely speculating on this
but this is something I have thought about before. It would be interesting
to get the statistics on what percentage of US servicemen wore eyeglasses
during the war.

[casita]

Audie Murphy wasn't very tall.
>

[M.J.Powell]

In article <750to7$7...@dgs.dgsys.com>, kc8hgt <jtbr...@email.msn.com>
writes

>Perhaps one reason could be: A good percentage of infantrymen were simple
>people. By that I mean hard working blue collar types; farmers, and factory
>workers. Just before the US involvment in the war the economicc state of
>the country was such that most of these people couldn't afford proper
>medical care (ie. . .eyecare).

Sounds reasonable, but the same would apply to the British. I don't know
of any eye-sight standard neccessary for infantry here.

Mike

[a...@dustdevil.com]

>>workers. Just before the US involvment in the war the economicc state of
>>the country was such that most of these people couldn't afford proper
>>medical care (ie. . .eyecare).

>Sounds reasonable, but the same would apply to the British. I don't know
>of any eye-sight standard neccessary for infantry here.

The British were needing a greater percentage of their population and
could not afford to pick and choose so much. However I know the age
was MUCH higher for draftees if they were single. Some factors could
weigh more than others for individuals. Being single might be one
that might over ride your sight problems.