Tango01 | 12 Jun 2017 3:31 p.m. PST |
"This monograph examines whether allowing women in direct combat assignments in the U.S. Army will adversely affect unit cohe-ion and as a result, degrade combat effectiveness. To answer this question the monograph conducts a theorezical analysis of the nature of war to establish the relationship between the unit, combat, and cohesion. From this analysis, a model of cohesion is developed to assist in an investigation and assessment of historical precedents of women serving in direct combat and- current issues. The monograph concludes with recommendations concerning present U.S. Army policy regarding the assignment of women to direct combat units The theoretical analysis reviews the physical, cybernetic, and moral domains of war wvhich establishes a framework to define the elements of cohesion as they relate to the destructive process of combat. From this analysis a model is developed which pictorially represents these relationships. The monograph then uses the model to evaluate historical precedents and current issues. Women fighting as members the Soviet Army during WWII and Israeli Army during the War for Independence form the historical basis for the evaluation. Current issues include: physiological and psychological studies to provide data to evaluate relative physical and mental capabilities. a comparative analysis of women serving as guerrillas, police, and firemen, as well as, a revi.-w of the Canadian Forces' experience with gender integration…" Main page PDF link Amicalement Armand
|
Irish Marine | 12 Jun 2017 3:39 p.m. PST |
I have asked this question before and I ask it again; what do they bring to the fight that a man can't do better, the answer is nothing. |
randy51 | 12 Jun 2017 4:45 p.m. PST |
" what do they bring to the fight that a man can't do better, the answer is nothing." Shocking, a simply shocking reply. Very true but shocking that you'd dare say it. Actually the vast majority of females would bring worse than nothing to a fight. Even the very few Alpha women who might be out there couldn't keep up with the average male in an infantry unit . Not to mention what happens to a units overall cohesion and effectiveness when that old male protection instinct kicks in. |
Charlie 12 | 12 Jun 2017 6:01 p.m. PST |
Oh brother…. I'll get the popcorn… A report from 1992… Gee that's REAL current. And written to uphold the status quo (big surprise…). BTW, I dare say the same kind of "report" was sternly written and accepted as gospel when the question of integrating the military came up (and was equally absurd). Oh, and I think the Kurds might disagree…. |
mandt2 | 12 Jun 2017 7:04 p.m. PST |
I have asked this question before and I ask it again; what do they bring to the fight that a man can't do better, the answer is nothing.Based on that statement one might conclude that you have never actually met a woman…at least one with half-a-brain and more than two or three teeth.
|
Charlie 12 | 12 Jun 2017 7:11 p.m. PST |
I have asked this question before and I ask it again; what do they bring to the fight that a man can't do better, the answer is nothing. Well, lets see…. Women have a higher resistance to G forces than men. That could be a crucial advantage in fighter combat (ie, the difference between being DEAD and being ALIVE…). Not that that will ever happen, given the macho nature of fighter pilots…. More chance of the fighter jock being replaced by a cybergeek running a drone (and that would as bad, if not worse, than being replaced by a women… in their minds). |
Davoust | 12 Jun 2017 8:10 p.m. PST |
The use of the Kurds, Soviets and Israel is a red herring. All three are or were fighting for their existence. Children as young as 10 were fighting in the German Army at the end of WWII. Read A Child of Hitler by Alfons Heck. I met the man while in college. He was a guest lecturer. He talked about how the use of women and children in the military is the sign of a declining civilization or a civilization that is on the brink of destruction. He was 14 when captured by US forces. The Kurds, use women as snipers. None use them in direct grunt work combat. 60 minutes followed female Marines who attempt to get through infantry courses. None, repeat none have made it through the Infantry Officers Course. Very few made it through MCT or Marine Combat Training. I watch the show, and from the little I saw of it, and after talking to my nephew who went through it a few years ago. It has been watered down from when Maj Murphy and I wrote the training program in 1989-90 at Camp Geiger. I have trained men and women in infantry training. Women are slower. Sorry they are. Physically unable to keep pace with the men. Oh one or two exceptions will be trotted out to prove they can. You will find youtube videos of say the female Army Captain who finished an intensive physical program and collapses but eventually with the cheering on of her fellow soldiers makes it across the finish line. But is worthless in combat. It does not matter if you can cross a finish line….that is only the beginning. She was unable to move, much less fight. Even the Woman Marine who finish MCT admitted on 60 Minutes she would not be able to maintain the pace with the men. She finish MCT and then went to her MOS school. The women who "finish" Ranger school. And how much help did they have. The brass in the Dept of Defense wanted women to finish Ranger School. So they were given extra time, sent to pre-training courses, allowed to recycle more than their male counterparts. Sending women in to combat is basically hatred of women. Setting them up to fail. And failure in combat means dead Marines who did not have to die. Mission comes before self. At least that is what was drilled into me PltSgt SSGT Griffin and all of my OCS, TBS and IOC instructor. Oh and Israel does not have women in combat units anymore. Yeah a couple of border battalions, but not in the combat arms. Why? Women harm combat effectiveness, they lower it. As reported by NPR, the Washington Times, NYT and National Reveiw (liberal and conservative side) in 2015, there is a myth as to the role of women in the IDF. The Marine Corps Force Integration Plan, reports on a test/evaluation the USMC conducted on all male, all female and mix unit squads. The all male squads were the most combat effective. You can read the report or summary on line. This was a year long evaluation conducted by the Marine Corps. In combat situations, women under performed men. Men were 70% more effective than women. The military is there to kill people and break things. Not for social justice warrior muddle that not only harms the country but is a great disservice to women. And if you have a report from the 1940's or 50's based on empirical data used by the military or government to deny certain races from combat units. please present it. In 1945 the Grillem Board, called to review segregated units found that segregated units should be done away with. During the Battle of The Bulge and other WWII actions, black soldiers were sent to depleted white units to keep up combat effectiveness. The comparison between intergration of minorities and women into combat units is dishonest. Blacks have served in the US Military since the AWI. In mixed units. During the early to mid 19th century, Congress decided to segregate the races. After the ACW, 4 black regiments served with distinction and honor. During the Spanish American War, The Federal Government authorized the raising of all black volunteer units as did many States to include Southern States like Alabama and North Carolina. During WWI, the Black Regiments were on the Mexican border…remember we were having border skirmishes at the time. Suggest you read Black Americans in the Defense of our Nation by the Dept of Defense, written in 1982 and revised 1985. The empirical evidence showed minorities could and were effective soldiers. They were segregated due to racism by the Federal Government. The empirical data shows that females are not as effective as males in combat roles. Women are not keep out due to some hidden hatred of women…or overt hatred of women. Like what happened to black, Asian, Latinos and Indians. They are restricted or denied combat roles because the evidence show they are physically unable to handle the stressors of combat. Women and Children are treasures of a civilization and should not be squandered for a political cause or social experiment. |
Charlie 12 | 12 Jun 2017 8:45 p.m. PST |
He talked about how the use of women and children in the military is the sign of a declining civilization or a civilization that is on the brink of destruction. With all due respect, that is a CROCK… I'm not going to go point by point because I have neither time nor inclination, but this I will say: There has ALWAYS been resistance to change. And especially in the military. You mention the integration issue. The fact that blacks had served (and served with distinction) from the AWI through to WWII did not stop many "learned" authors from writing long and weighty papers decrying the ineptitude, the unsuitability, the whatever… of blacks in defense of the segregation status quo. That's a FACT (do a google search, if you like). Its also a fact that they were DEAD WRONG. And I venture the same will be said of this issue in the years to come… Women and Children are treasures of a civilization and should not be squandered for a political cause or social experiment. That sounds like code for "Women should stay in the kitchen" or, more basely, "Women should be barefoot and pregnant"… Its 2017. Not 1817…. |
Mitochondria | 12 Jun 2017 10:07 p.m. PST |
I think Irish Marine and Davoust have eloquently answered the question. |
Bunkermeister | 12 Jun 2017 11:07 p.m. PST |
There are nearly 200 countries in the world and none of them use women in combat on a regular basis. No American leader has ever said, "If only our Army was half women we would have won that battle." I agree with Irish Marine and Davoust. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
foxweasel | 12 Jun 2017 11:55 p.m. PST |
Isn't strange how none of the infantry soldiers I know (including myself) want this to happen, but loads of civilians and non-combat arms troops do. I think that speaks volumes. |
Patrick R | 13 Jun 2017 4:08 a.m. PST |
I do wonder how a modern, young healthy woman who has had access to good nutrition for all her life and is in excellent physical condition, compares to the average male soldier throughout history. |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 4:28 a.m. PST |
I read somewhere that the average Rifleman in the Peninsula would have levels of stamina and fitness that would be found today only in special forces. As a current infantry soldier I can well believe that, even though our nutrition and ability to run fast is probably better, their ability to endure far surpasses ours. |
Gwydion | 13 Jun 2017 6:06 a.m. PST |
Alfons Heck. I met the man while in college. He was a guest lecturer. He talked about how the use of women and children in the military is the sign of a declining civilization or a civilization that is on the brink of destruction. He was 14 when captured by US forces. and thoroughly indoctrinated into a system run by a man who said of the German woman that her "world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home". So I think we should take his views on social movement and engineering with a shovel full of salt at the very least. As for people who do a job wanting to keep it a closed shop- we stopped unions doing that. I have no particular axe to grind about whether women should be in front line combat roles but the views of the people doing the job must be considered, but other inputs are necessary. Being so close to a situation does not always mean you have the right perspective to make an accurate judgement. |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 6:23 a.m. PST |
I know what you mean about taking different perspectives, ordinarily you're right. Without trying to sound patronising, the only people who know about Dismounted Close Combat are those that have done it, and by that I mean actually done it not just trained for it or read all the pamphlets and books. None of us want women in the role, and when it comes down to it, we're the only ones it affects. This decision isn't about combat effectiveness, it's about political correctness and governments being perceived as sexist. |
Gwydion | 13 Jun 2017 6:33 a.m. PST |
Well, without trying to sound patronising, you always will be until someone else tries it. I've worked with women in signals and intelligence roles and they worked well, but I completely accept that is a different thing from infantry fighting. And I confess my gut instinct is to not encourage it. But if women want to try it, I can't see a reason why we should stop them. The physical aspects may be a problem but intelligence and initiative are things we need in front line units and hard to get. I think we should try it first before condemning it and rejecting a potentially valuable pool of recruits. |
HammerHead | 13 Jun 2017 7:03 a.m. PST |
Foxweasel you don`t read history book do you. My one time obsession was ACW and about 2 soldiers died of disease for 1 that was killed in action. So what makes you think Napoleonic troops fared any better? They had a mini series on UK tv that said before Waterloo troops had hardly anything to eat. I don`t think this same ol`topic has many more outings, before its retired with the rest of the non topics. One point though, I see many more women joggers than blokes. |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 7:28 a.m. PST |
How's women jogging relevant to this subject? How's dying of incurable disease relevant to the combat ability of 19th century soldiers. I said their ability to endure and their stamina exceeds their modern counterparts. And yes I read it in a book, but I often think about it when I'm in the desert or freezing rain, just how awful it would have been without modern kit. If you think it's a non topic why are you attempting to contribute. |
HammerHead | 13 Jun 2017 8:12 a.m. PST |
If you have read any of the previous post they seem to imply that women arent as fit as men.Just seems to me that modern women of all ages don`t need the approval of men and they have women only gyms and they do what they want. They learn martial arts and are good at it. So, getting back to topic Why can`t women fight in combat roles? Russia had no problem in WW2 in sending women to fight, in large numbers. If the fact they want to be equal, send them out there. But I don`t see them knocking down the recruitment doors demanding this, perhaps there is an underling question there? I know a Royal navy guy and his impression of female sailors, having to do the same job said they were useless. |
Dynaman8789 | 13 Jun 2017 10:27 a.m. PST |
> I have asked this question before and I ask it again; what do they bring to the fight that a man can't do better, the answer is nothing. Turn that question around and the answer is the same. |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 10:56 a.m. PST |
Nonsense. Men are stronger, faster, more aggressive and intimidating. |
nickinsomerset | 13 Jun 2017 11:27 a.m. PST |
I agree with the obvious ex service/serving members here! It seems that it is usually civilians and film directors that seem to believe women are as good/better than men! I have worked with plenty of women with an SF (Ireland) background who have passed courses that many men have failed, however none would have made it through Brecon, junior or senior. A few years ago I was sat in an office with a female liaison officer. I suggested that it was a bit cramped, like a tank turret! She replied I know, I was a Tank Commander before here on T-62. She was a slight girl and during our conversation it transpired that she could not lift the shells, or help with heavy maintenance, Tally Ho! |
Irish Marine | 13 Jun 2017 11:35 a.m. PST |
Ok, I put the women in combat question to a gaggle of wanna-be feminist a while ago this way. Suppose MEN were the ones not allowed into combat arms and had to fight through the political world to be able to serve. Now knowing from studies done with mixed combat arms units and all male combat arms units and how the all males units out did the mixed units. So my question was what do men bring to the fight? Aggressiveness, speed, strength, endurance better shooters etc. what would be the attitude then, the country would probably want all male combat arms units. So what do women bring to our units now besides social engineering; and the answer is NOTHING. I have met two combat vets who were all for females in combat and that's it, out of the hundreds of Marines I know and served with no one thinks it's a good idea. And the usual BS is the females pushing for this nonsense would never ever let their children serve just yours. |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 11:41 a.m. PST |
Cheers Nick, a lot of people seem to think I have an issue with women in the military, I don't. What I do have an issue with is people who say that women should be in the infantry and then use Afghanistan as an example. Or bring up the Soviets in WW2, modern Israelis or Kurds. Afghanistan wasn't a peer on peer war. A lot of women did see combat, but it was in self defence, not animalistic trench clearing and gutter fighting. That's the real job of the infantry, not taking pot shots at Afghan farmers. The Soviets in WW2 were the same, they used women in combat, in roles they were suited to, not dismounted close combat. The Israelis gave up women in the infantry ages ago, apart from a couple of border guard units not expected to face the enemy. |
nickinsomerset | 13 Jun 2017 11:51 a.m. PST |
But then Fox, I have just had a shudder thinking of some of the WRACs from 28 Sqn in the 80s, dragging poor young squaddies off the dance floor of the Marley club for a night of involuntary passion!! Tally Ho! |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 11:53 a.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 13 Jun 2017 12:31 p.m. PST |
Two points I would mske. First- throughout history women have successfully impersonated male soldiers, some very well indead. Two -women do not get treated equality when know as females. From training to working in the field. Time and time again have heard and read women out on posts for days will get time to go back to the barracks that their male counterparts do not. Men will also return to their male internal instincts when with females both in sexual tension and protective tendency. Not worth it IMO, but not my call. |
Mike Target | 13 Jun 2017 1:19 p.m. PST |
Are we quite certain that woman are actually not as strong as men and that its not just an affectation to avoid doing chores like bring the shopping in from the car? |
foxweasel | 13 Jun 2017 1:40 p.m. PST |
Could well be, but the Mrs had to get me to open a jar of pickled onions for her tonight. |
Legion 4 | 13 Jun 2017 2:49 p.m. PST |
Wow ! This is a topic that certainly has been beaten to death many times before. And I generally have to agree with what many Vets have said here. |
Achtung Minen | 13 Jun 2017 3:09 p.m. PST |
I think opinions are slowly changing and that's a good thing. Take Gal Gadot, for instance, who was a brave soldier of the IDF and is now showing both boys and girls what a woman can do on the big screen. |
LostPict | 13 Jun 2017 3:10 p.m. PST |
What women bring to the fight is numbers (51% of the population). In the west, we have been very fortunate not to fight a prolonged ground war that chews through soldiers in a very long time (wars like Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and ACW). Instead, we have been largely engaged in protracted COIN operations were a small cadre of very well trained could meet the needs for direct action. However, I think we kid ourselves if think that All Volunteer forces will remain all the that is ever needed. A lot has changed since we last had conscription in the US, including equal opportunity and the general overall fitness of Americans (we now have a lot of folks that tip 300# and those that can bench 300#). In our future extremis, it would be as logical to exclude All Women because Some Women cannot meet the physical requirements is it would be short sighted as excluding All Men because Some Men cannot meet the those same requirements. Set realistic requirements, hold all to the same standards and let the DIs sort it out. |
McKinstry | 13 Jun 2017 4:29 p.m. PST |
I believe roughly 70% of all eligible US persons of the appropriate age are either too fat, too stupid or too criminal/addicted to be acceptable to the armed forces. Of that remaining 30%, the vast majority have zero interest or willingness to serve. The armed forces have no choice but to make the most of the human capital available and while that may result in a far lower percentage of females that try for 11 bravo roles making it due to basic strength issues, it benefits the overall force structure to let them try and identify and utilize those that can do the job. I have no personal experience on women in combat as 46 years ago, they were excluded from my AFSC but my son is an Apache pilot with one Afghan deployment under his belt and he has no issue with the two women pilots from his company. It is interesting that while he considers neither among the best pilots, they are also not the bottom of the barrel as that honor belongs to two men. |
Irish Marine | 13 Jun 2017 4:39 p.m. PST |
Flying is, in my opinion not trench clearing nor room clearing. |
McKinstry | 13 Jun 2017 6:02 p.m. PST |
The term used in the original post was direct combat assignments. Debating infantry, armor and artillery is a different discussion as EOD, aviation and many other MOS can be direct combat jobs but not involving the physical demands of trench or room clearing, shell humping or track breaking. I doubt the gender of an AC-130 pilot, sub driver or weapons officer in a CIC with incoming vampires makes an ounce of difference compared to intelligence, decision skill and decisiveness. |
goragrad | 13 Jun 2017 7:54 p.m. PST |
Once again, while I have no personal military experience, the JNA having had the largest percentage of women in combat roles in recent history mustered all but a few token officers (Heroes of the Revolution) out of the armed forces post-WWII. Women were only added to the military rosters again in non-combat roles in the 70s when there was perceived to be a creditable threat of Soviet invasion. There may have been women in VC units, but insofar as I saw in research the NVA used them only as support troops. Insofar as impact on the armed forces in general, having a significantly larger personnel requirements due to the fact that 15 percent (25 percent in the Partisans in WWII) of your female force is unavailable for duty due to pregnancy (with the associated increase in the medical budget) or stress injuries to which women are more susceptible makes little sense when budgets are considered too large already. Remaking a military just to give a handful of female officers a better chance of promotion is not a logical reason. |
Wolfhag | 14 Jun 2017 6:30 a.m. PST |
My son is in SIGINT and they have a number of women. He said some are good, most are worthless. They mostly function as analysts. They do not accompany grunts and recon on raids and do not carry 150 pounds of equipment. They do not work out of hotel rooms in foreign countries under cover. They all finish in the bottom half of PT and forced marches. He had a female LT who never left Kuwait while he deployed into combat zones. There was a reason for it. It appears we need woman attached to all levels of operations because of cultural sensitivities. Let's put them in a situation where they can succeed and make contributions, not set them up to fail and endanger others. We should consider what Norway has done. link Putting a group of woman in a scaled down version of training that would enable to work with and contribute to all male units they are assigned to could be logical. I was in Marine infantry. There is NO WAY I would want my daughter hanging out with alcohol and testosterone fueled grunts and neither should you. I would not even want her to date one. I've even warned my son's girlfriends too. Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 14 Jun 2017 8:16 a.m. PST |
I believe roughly 70% of all eligible US persons of the appropriate age are either too fat, too stupid or too criminal/addicted to be acceptable to the armed forces. Of that remaining 30%, the vast majority have zero interest or willingness to serve. I have heard stats that agree with that. And from what I have seen in public places like mall food courts, etc., I don't doubt that … And again, Shrileylyn's husband John, Mckinstry, Irish Marine, and Wolfhag I can wholeheartedly agree with. testosterone fueled grunts Yes that is an accurate comment based on my experiences too. The is one thing that makes Infantrymen, etc., effective … is the large amount of "Test" in younger males. Remaking a military just to give a handful of female officers a better chance of promotion is not a logical reason. Exactly … But in the past decade of so, some in the civilians in leadership positions try social experimentation and engineers in the military. However, many of those making those decisions won't effect their offspring. A concept going around in the leadership of the USA. The military senior officers have made a recommendation that IF all branches including direct combat branches be opened to females. Then in turn 18 year old females should sign up for the draft like males. Interestingly there seems to not be too much movement by the civilian leadership in that direction, AFAIK. [The Gens & Adms probably knew this would happen, they are strategists and tacticians after all …] How many in any strata of society especially where the "air is thinner" want their "little girl" drafted for a war ? Or otherwise for that matter. If it comes to that ? I'm pretty sure most of us know that answer. I do remember in the '60s not too many males[or their families] wanted to be drafted for combat in the Infantry, Tanks, etc. To fight a "crazy" war, as it was referred to sometimes. Where most couldn't find it on a map, etc., know or care why the US was there. I don't think that paradigm would change too much currently either … |
Wolfhag | 14 Jun 2017 8:40 a.m. PST |
Just to clarify. What I was told that was the difference between the guys and gals doing their SIGINT work. The women do a pretty fair job in following the procedure and doing things by the book. However, when you are putting together a target package in a foreign country you really need to think outside the box as the procedures and book does not cover completely all of the nuances of an operation. You need to be able to ad lib in tight situations and get equipment to perform beyond the level it was designed for. He said the women just don't think like that. He did say one of the best Gunny's in his Bn is a woman. It eventually ends up with Corporals and Lance Corporals attempting to "sell" their target package to the higher ups and convince them to allocate resources and lives to go after the target. My son once went to a bird Colonel to convince him against the advice of his staff. People outside the SIGINT community do not really understand it and thus are somewhat skeptical. You need to have a lot of credibility and confidence in addition to a well laid out plan. Then you have to volunteer to go out in the field with the team and get your hands dirty. That team (sometimes spec ops and CIA) needs to trust you with their lives. There are very few 21-year-old females that are able to accomplish that or be given the chance. However, there are slots where they can make very valuable contributions. Remember a few months ago that dam in Syria that was taken by US forces with MARSOC going down the river in rubber boats? That operation started with a Marine Corporal getting intel and targeting information in the area, putting together the package and pushing it up the chain of command. The operation was given to go ahead because of his team's work. That Corporal was trained by my son. Wolfhag |
Dynaman8789 | 14 Jun 2017 11:01 a.m. PST |
> There are very few 21-year-old females that are able to accomplish that or be given the chance. Well, the second part of that sentence is true. |
Blutarski | 14 Jun 2017 11:46 a.m. PST |
+1 on your son, Wolfhag. Good job! As for the rest of this "women should be in combat" foolishness ….. well, it goes to show that some people can convince themselves of just about any sort of lunacy. B |
zoneofcontrol | 14 Jun 2017 12:15 p.m. PST |
Multi-part Question: If male recruits cannot meet the standards of entry into the Army, are they allowed in anyhow? If men are not able to complete Boot Camp to the pre-set standards are they allowed to continue? If men are unable to meet requirements of training standards post-Boot Camp are they allowed to continue? If they are not allowed to continue… Why? |
Irish Marine | 14 Jun 2017 1:01 p.m. PST |
In 1986 when I went to Boot Camp for the Marine Corps we started with 68 recruits and graduated 48. In the first week of boot camp you run a initial PFT and if you don't pass you go to a conditioning platoon until you can keep up with a regular training platoon, plus your time starts over so some recruits are there at Boot Camp for more than 13 weeks, also your recruiter gets in trouble for sending a recruit who isn't physically fit. Most of our drops in my platoon if I recall correctly were fitness and failure to adapt to the Marine Corps. |
Wolfhag | 14 Jun 2017 1:49 p.m. PST |
Thanks Blutarski Dynaman8789, You have a choice of who to trust your life to. Choice 1: 5'5" 110-pound female Choice 2: 6'5" 200-pound male I'd take choice #2 because I can hide behind him and won't have to hump his gear. Combat aside, the vast % of your time is spent in the rear/barracks life. Marine grunts (as far as I know) still live in an open barracks arrangement by platoon and shower like you did on the high school football team. It's a tribal/bonding relationship that other MOS don't have. When idle these overly macho 19-year-old Marines will think of some of the stupidest things to do or say (I know – I was one), especially if alcohol is around. To put any female into that environment is criminal. Then there is those freezing night on a mountaintop when people need to huddle up to stay warm. Do you really want some horny Jarhead spooning your daughter to keep himself warm? Part of the "bonding rituals" is playing practical jokes, trash talking, horseplay and sometimes an old fashioned beat down. Any of the above would be considered sexual harassment if a woman is involved. Any woman that would want to go out into town and binge drink with these guys (another bonding ritual) is CRAZY. That's all I have to say on the subject. Wolfhag |
ScottS | 14 Jun 2017 1:57 p.m. PST |
Another former Marine here… If male recruits cannot meet the standards of entry into the Army, are they allowed in anyhow? It depends on how close they are. Consider – what if a recruit is, say, five pounds overweight according to the standards of the service he's joining? Odds are that he's going to run that off in boot camp with few problems… If men are not able to complete Boot Camp to the pre-set standards are they allowed to continue? Generally, they're given additional chances. They're "recycled" and sent to a platoon that is not as far along in training so they can complete the training. For example, say a recruit breaks his leg. Obviously he can't take the physical fitness test – so he's "dropped" and sent to "Medical Recovery Platoon," where he can recover, then sent to another platoon to complete training. If men are unable to meet requirements of training standards post-Boot Camp are they allowed to continue? It depends. More likely than not, the command will make life utterly miserable for them until they DO make the standards. For example, if you fail your physical fitness test (PFT) you're going to suffer, doing lots and lots (and lots) of extra running under the close eye of your platoon sergeant until you DO pass. But if they just can't, they'll eventually be discharged. |
Legion 4 | 14 Jun 2017 3:20 p.m. PST |
Choice 1: 5'5" 110-pound female Choice 2: 6'5" 200-pound male Choice 3: 5'5" 200-pound female … no, wait … never mind … well, it goes to show that some people can convince themselves of just about any sort of lunacy. Amen to that ! It even happens here frequently on TMP ! |
Charlie 12 | 14 Jun 2017 6:36 p.m. PST |
well, it goes to show that some people can convince themselves of just about any sort of lunacy. And most of the above perfectly illustrates that…. Like it or not, things will change. What is absolute today will be replaced tomorrow. And in 20, 30, 100 years, this little kerfuffle will seem quaint… Get over it…. |
foxweasel | 14 Jun 2017 11:50 p.m. PST |
How does the above illustrate it? All the people who are opposing women in the infantry are actually infantry soldiers. As has been said, this is about perceived sexism and political correctness rather than combat effectiveness. Get over it? I hope you can get over it when our troops are dying unnecessarily because they can't fight effectively in bitter hand to hand trench fighting. |
Blutarski | 15 Jun 2017 4:20 a.m. PST |
foxweasel – Charlie 12 is actually correct, just not in the way he believes. The Boxers believed that they were impervious to the bullets of the foreign western devils; the American Indians likewise placed great faith in bullet-proof talismans; the French entered WW1 confident that no enemy could stand before a spirited bayonet attack by their brave soldiers; Douhet believed that strategic air power would make war obsolete. McNamara believed that war could be "managed" from 10,000 miles away as a real-time top-down corporate exercise using game theory. These were all found to be misguided beliefs and, 20, 30, 100 years later, we have (except perhaps for the last item mentioned) moved on from them. B |
Wolfhag | 15 Jun 2017 6:09 a.m. PST |
Do some checking to see if in the last 3,000+ years any country has had a standing regular army that relied on for their national security all female combat units (battalion or above) that have successfully engaged their male counterparts in the conventional warfare of the day. I'm sure there are a few exceptions. Yes, we'll move on and in 100 years the above will still be true and this PC experiment will die. There will always be some women that can physically outperform some men but there will never be enough to make a difference except to please the delusions the the PC crowd. Political Correctness is a Psy-Op designed to fool people into believing an alternate reality. As Lenin called them "Useful Idiots". If the US was ever in a situation like the Kurds are in our female fighters would outnumber the Kurd's females and they would be every bit as good or better than their Kurdish sisters. However, they would still not be relied on to carry 150 pounds of gear. Like it or not that is the current benchmark for infantry. If you can't perform up to the standards you are a liability. The benchmark and standards are different for other MOS's. Yes, it's the testosterone laden infantry guys that are most outspoken, they know best. Here is a report from Israel: Mixed-gender units had higher casualty rates, and Haganah (an irregular self-defense force, not a conventional army unit) commanders stopped using women in assault forces because "physically girls could not run as well — and if they couldn't run fast enough, they could endanger the whole unit, so they were put in other units." Operating a fly-by-wire combat aircraft while in a reclined position in an air conditioned cockpit for 3-4 hours (something women have proven to do) is much different than humping 100+ pounds of gear up and down the thin air of mountains for weeks at a time. I have not heard any reports of combat pilots blowing out their knees or ruining their back because of the stress of combat flying. Neither have I heard reports of them suffering from heat stroke or hypothermia either. Dogfighting is intense but only a handful have been in a combat dogfight in the last 20 years. Having all female combat units with benchmarks they can make and use them for local defense forces, border patrol, perimeter guards, civic affairs, etc should be fine. Let's put them in a position where they can contribute and succeed and not fail because of some PC experiment. Combat is one thing but the vast majority of time is spent in non-combat. Charlie12, how would you feel if your wife or daughter were in an infantry outfit as "one of the guys" and was showering naked next to Legion 4 and snuggling up next to him to keep warm in below freezing weather? Get over it. Wolfhag |