"Women in combat" Topic

Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units : The Two-Way : NPR

🤔 Could Pete be right? Someone should tell the Senators.

link

Wow. According to that study, and the 1992 study referenced (along with studies conducted by US allies, but not specifically named), biological men and biological women are physically different in ways which directly impact combat capabilities. I will stop there, to avoid politics. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!

It's obvious males are stronger than females except that very few.
If It's a matter of getting enough bodies to fill the ranks sure, but better to have the best in front.

Should not be any surprise that the average male marine will out perform the average female marine when it comes to strength based evolutions. I wonder how the results may very if you compared men and women Marines that had the same fitness scores versus random volunteers? Also wonder did the mixed gender units outperform maleonly units 31% of the time and what were those evoltuions? Just curious. Do know that male only recruits will need to include draftees to meet current shortage of male volunteers.

YouTube link

This tells you everything you need to know.

Yes, nothing most of us who were in the military don't already know. Pete Hegseth wears his 187 Infantry Crest on his jacket lapel. I was in the 187 about 20 years before he was. .

Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, etc. like him because he understands the military from where the rubber meets the road. He being an Infantryman and officer, who served at Gitmo, then in Iraq and A'stan. Awarded a CIB and 2 Bronze Stars. Was a Plt Ldr and Co Cdr. He understands the "warrior ethos" and spirit. He's seen combat at the pointy end of the spear.

He hated as many did the weakening of the US Military by all the woke DEI, CRT, that was pushed from the top down.

Watching his hearing in Congress. With all the attacks on him, just demonstrated what a threat he is to the woke, DEI, CRT, socialist, etc., politicians.

The attacks were by some, especially by some females in Congress was particularly violent. One who was a, IIRC, a UH-60 pilot who lost both her legs in Iraq. She was the only one among that has CV to talk smack as she did. But I feel she forgot about the Brotherhood of Arms. She as well as some others their attacks revolved around not letting females into combat arms as then they wouldn't have the same opportunity to make higher rank.

So reality be damned, females must be combat arms so a few could get promoted to a higher rank. Now of course there are many Female GENs. But I don't think any have made it to the JCS levels ? It is just clear to me that these females and probably some males in Congress. Don't get what history and those who have "seen the elephant" know from first-hand experience. And lived to talk about it.

Many of these in Congress never served and if so certainly not in a line Infantry or tank unit. But they are willing push females into harm's way in the name of some form of equality or is it equity ? In the face of the realities that occur in combat.

He mentioned that combat units have quotas for females in those units. One of the females Congress berated him that she never heard of anything like. Insinuating he just trying to keep women out of combat arms, etc., etc. …

Some of you may relate to this paradigm. Of e.g. an Infantry Bn that now has females in the unit as trained Infantrymen. The "quotas" would be IMO, being a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr. Is something that inevitably would become a new situation to confront combat arms leaders.

Would you put all the female Infantryman or Tankers or FA crews, etc. in one unit? HHC ?

Or would you starting at Bn level, assign females to each unit ? Scattering them around line Companies and in turn in the Plts, Sqds, Fire Tms, etc. ?

Would there be all female tank and artillery crews ?

All in the name of equality/equity of the sexes ? Which is fine in most other jobs, outside the Military. I laud that … But do any of those in Congress understand what occurs in combat ? E.g. there is so much footage of pitched battles with the advent of cameras, etc. Much in some very good documentaries on TV, online, etc., etc. Those could probably give them a good idea.

It seems to me these elected officials don't really understand what combat units do ?

Another thing is and was not mentioned. No one talked about what happened to the Female IDF soldiers at the hands of Hamas rapists, murderers, etc. Sadly, it is well documented on GO Pro cameras used by those savages. And can be seen online. I won't even choose to view such horrors. Did any of those female and even male elected officials watch any of that footage ? And still would say females should be in Infantry, Tanks, etc.

Another point, of course, these elected officials forgot they work for us. But I am pretty sure none of these officials' will have to be concerned about their female kin ever going into the military or combat. Of course there is no draft anymore, and most likely those in DC won't have to worry about it regardless …

I am for the best conditioned and qualified soldiers to get the job done period. It's gonna be men in a lot of these roles, especially regarding the physical demands of combat. That's what it is.

My problem is that I think that while Pete is tooting around looking for woke and DEI, WW3 is gonna come up and bite him in the @$&.

Great soldier or not, dealing with corrupt Congressmen, defense contractors, weapons development, recruitment, managing a thousand issues at once while holding the reins of global command – not getting that vibe.

I have mixed feelings about this subject.

1) in combat positions that require skill, I think women can perform them as well as men. Pilots, snipers, etc. They have in other wars.
2) If it requires strength, most cannot come up to qualifications and qualifications should not be reduced to accommodate them. Which we know, has not been the case.
3) Combined units do pose their own "unique" problems. When the going gets rough, it seems more "accidental" pregnancies seem to appear.
4) women have all the rights of men in the US. Should they not suffer all the same dangers then as well?
5) But I don't want our combat effectiveness harmed. So how do we rectify 4 and 5?

If you have equal rights, you should have equal danger. It's unfair for one group to suffer one, but not the other. Placing women in the back lines and supply, does not seem to me to fulfill 4. Pilots, snipers do, but that does not require that many women.

If not in combat, can we take away rights? 🤔 🤣 Right, that's going to happen!

So what do we do?

Stick with performance results and assign accordingly would be my choice. Avoid the politics of it. There are critical tasks. Find the best performing people for each.

Of course he's right. I've seen mixed-gender units, and single-gender units, and had mixed-gender training, and single-gender training. There's no comparison. Women simply cannot perform physically at the same level as men, even at the top end of the scale.

After Venus and Serena Williams boasted they could beat any man outside of the top 200-ranked tennis players in the world (a pretty interesting caveat in its own right, when you think about it), the 203-ranked male player decided he'd take the Pepsi Challenge on that. Karsten Braasch played Serena, beat her, smoked a Marlboro, and then played Venus- and beat her. The twins promptly declared that the could beat any man ranked 250th or better, but I don't think they ever put it to the test.

Similarly, when I was a cadet at West Point, the Indoor Obstacle Course Test was a graduation requirement. As physical tests go, it was a real beast- they ran it in the old Hayes Gym, and they kept buckets at the end so you had something to puke in. When I was a cadet, the rock-bottom, just-barely-passing score for a man was an A for a woman. Moreover, women had the option to use alternate means to pass some portions of the test that were simply too hard for most of them- climbing a cargo net instead of a rope, for example.

We were told then – more than thirty years ago – that these tests were essential to prepare us for combat. Nobody wanted to publicly speak to the elephant in the room. The men who couldn't meet the male standard didn't become second lieutenants: some of the women who couldn't are now general officers.

The rot runs deep.

You can't give women tasks they cannot physically do without at some point endangering the people around them.

Think on this though. If they cannot perform the task, should they make the same money? We hear "equality of pay!", but if you are not fulfilling the job, why?

I had this happen in a manual labor job back in the 70's. Union job, GM. One job required that we rotate positions on a shock line. It was an Army shock line, so shocks were very big. One job on the rotation required picking up 2 shocks off the line, reversing them, place into a compressor, take them out and reverse them back onto the line. Only one woman ever tried to do it (and failed). The others tried to get the guys to trade a position. If we would not, they would go and complain to the union and the guys had to double jobs. YET, they still got paid the same!!

That is one of the reasons I learned to be a systems engineer.

It's one of the reasons I left the Army. Why put in all the hard work that goes into being a combat arms officer, only to realize that a woman for whom the APFT was a four event test* is going to get a bonus in the promotion sweepstakes- even though her physical characteristics mean she is a worse, not a better, soldier.

When I got done, my brigade commander looked at his S-1 and said, "when are we going to f-in' learn?"

That was twenty-five years ago. I often wonder how the senior officers enjoyed fighting a war with the ones who stayed; unfortunately, I don't have to wonder how they won it.

*Legion, I bet you remember that joke!

My problem is that I think that while Pete is tooting around looking for woke and DEI, WW3 is gonna come up and bite him in the @$&.

Disagree, Pete like a lot combat soldiers and chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. Cleansing the corrupting woke, DEI, CRT, etc. influencing the warrior ethos, spirit, etc. DX'ing the divisive narrative and agenda of this unrealist and false dogma.

That will be going on while getting back to training, create a combat ready force, and increasing lethality of this US Armed Forces.

Great soldier or not, dealing with corrupt Congressmen, defense contractors, weapons development, recruitment, managing a thousand issues at once while holding the reins of global command – not getting that vibe.

Again disagree … I think after being around some very effective combat arms officers. They have a tendency to not put up this 🐎💩.

Plus Pete is not part of the old boy club/old swamp creatures. Most of all of the POTUS's picks are younger, not corrupted by the "way we always had done it". Still taking $ from lobbyists, etc. Of course I am biased …

OVI +1

9lbs rd. +5

Similarly, when I was a cadet at West Point,

Your qualifications as shown in your posts gives you the experience to speak of the reality, etc. on this topic. 👍👍

more than thirty years ago – that these tests were essential to prepare us for combat. Nobody wanted to publicly speak to the elephant in the room. The men who couldn't meet the male standard didn't become second lieutenants: some of the women who couldn't are now general officers.

I have heard similar. I may be a very old school. But I know how tough, hard, etc. Ranger School is. As I have said before I was not good enough to be Ranger qualified. But many of my comrades/friends in the 101 and other Infantry units I served with worn the Ranger Tab.

How in the Gods' name did so many females became Ranger qualified ? Rumor was the standards were lowered … I have a tendency to believe that was/is true … Or are women today much "tougher" then when I was on active duty, a long time ago, '79-'90.

my brigade commander looked at his S-1 and said, "when are we going to f-in' learn?"

Bingo ! Seems they still have not learned … A RET Army COL, who at one time commanded a Range Bn. Plus was a Green Beret. He told my when he was on a promotion board. The GEN in charge told them before they started, "Choose the best … but 10% have to be female".

*Legion, I bet you remember that joke!

Oh Yes, I do, if it is the one I'm thinking of. 😁😏

You can't give women tasks they cannot physically do without at some point endangering the people around them.

Bingo ! That means that another member of the Squad, crew, etc. has to pick up the slack. Makes things even worst if your Squad, etc. is short troops. Which happened very often in my experience during peacetime, etc.

The standards were lowered. But then, they always are: it used to be that Airborne School was a serious physical challenge, because it was meant not just to teach parachuting, but to ensure that every man coming out was up to the standards of service in an Airborne rifle company. When I went through it in the nineties, it was no big deal- which was frankly a disappointment.

link

And we haven't even gotten to the "you can't treat women the same way you treat men" aspect of this debate, nor a point my old Chief of Firing Battery put succinctly: "Sir, you put men and women in a barracks, in' WILL commence!"

I have to agree with you. I went thru Airborne in early '80s. Even then the females had to do knee push-ups, and pull-ups from lying on their backs under a set of bars a 2ft. or so off the ground.

Same with the APFT, as you know, the female pass-fail standards were glaringly different. E.g. IIRC, to max. Push-ups – Men had to do 80 … for women it was 60.

But yes, no matter how much those in the WH/DC, etc. want to make females = males in all cases. Just can't be done. We see how the woke, DEI progressives, etc. under the US's current leadership[2 days and counting] tried and are still trying. to say the sexes are equal in all ways. Then pushing moronic, illogical, etc. ideas that men can get pregnant, and there are more than 2 sexes, etc. 😣🤨

I generally have no problem with females in the Army, but not in combat branches. For all the reasons we have mentioned and more. But just like when the WH/Congress, etc. decides what is going to be ROE. In a number of cases as I saw/told it was too restrictive. Costing the troops at the sharp end of the spear more losses along with making the ops less effective and actually getting the mission done successfully.

This going to sound biased and would certainly upset those females and some males in Congress that were grilling Pete. Seeing females in Infantry units and some wearing Ranger Tabs would seem so crazy to the officers and men in the 4 Infantry Bns I served in.

Women are not made for the military environment, and they can only be accommodated by changing it to meet their requirements- and that's a problem, because militaries are made for the toughest stress-tests there are. There are fundamental differences in the way the sexes (the two of them, not ten or whatever the media machine is telling us there are this month), and if you doubt that, think about the different reaction you will get if you call a man "ugly," and use the same term for a woman. A man will laugh that off- in some contexts, it's practically a complement. Not so for a woman.

Women can do a lot of things- and in a pinch, they can certainly fight. But that's a last resort kind of thing, and the only way armies can adapt themselves to accommodate women on a routine basis is to change them fundamentally- and the decision to do that is the product of isolation from the realities of war, and a belief (real or mistaken) that the bad old days of truly high-intensity major force-on major force combat are behind us. And that's a mistake.

What a load of old hackneyed piffle.

Modern warfare is about using armoured vehicles. A woman might well have difficulty pulling a track on, but can lift an engine out using a crane just as well as a man. Women can drive tanks, load cannon, operate radios, command.

Modern combat weapons are smaller and use lighter ammunition than older weapons. A woman can handle an SA80 or M16 or AK74 just as easily and also command others to do the same. Granted most men can probably wield a bayonet better than most women but when were bayonet charges general?

The greatest advantage women bring to the table is that of diversity – diversity away from testosterone-laden attitudes, customs and spanish-practices.

Taking a break from commenting on the looks of Israeli female soldiers to come lecture us on diversity, eh?

Modern warfare is about a lot more than armor, and even mechanized infantry have to dismount. Women cannot move as fast, cannot carry the same load, and will not take the prolonged pounding without injury that men will. Those are facts, and I saw it firsthand when I was on active duty.

Your idea that modern equipment is somehow miraculously lighter than the old stuff is a little parlous. An M16 is only a pound or two lighter than the old Lee-Enfield I use to hunt- and I've carried two of them, when a woman couldn't carry one.

As for those "testosterone-laden attitudes," those are what get men over the line of departure. Nobody turns at the aircraft door and shouts, "For diversity, folx!"

@9#O

Re IDF: I was responding to Red Jacket's BS challenge.

The weapon examples were poorly chosen and argued. The SA80 is quite heavy – but is quite short – so easy to handle and point about.

For diversity, folx!

That'd make a great ironical war film – let's give Paul Verhoeven a call:

Wiki – Starship Troopers – VERHOEVEN 1997

I'm sure you were, but either way, you had me at "hackneyed piffle."

After all, everyone looks at the women warriors posts to see where they can find evidence of military efficiency, right?

It'd make a lousy ironical war cry, because it's not even plausible, although a man like Paul Verhoeven (who's probably best known for exploiting Sharon Stone) is as likely as anyone in that city to try, I suppose. It says a lot about your judgment (and your complete inability to understand where the people you're arguing with are coming from, since you're clearly comfortable with your cliched stereotype terms) that you chose Robert Heinlein as your source material. Now THAT's ironical – because you can read for yourself what he had to say on the topic of patriotism and women in his address to the Brigade of Midshipmen at Annapolis right here:

link

It's a little more complicated than the woke narrative of testosterone, male privilege, and "toxicity."

I'm sure you can find an American to explain the references to Howard Gilmore, the Dorchester chaplains, and anything else you may not recognize.

9lbs Rd. +1

As for those "testosterone-laden attitudes,"

On an occasion someone asks or says something about what makes a good Infantryman. Based on my past, etc., what makes a good Infantryman is he has more testosterone than common sense … Or we wouldn't do 1/2 the stuff Infantryman as part of their job …

Modern warfare is about using armoured vehicles.
testosterone-laden attitudes, customs

Perhaps in European and American gun-runners' and generals' dreams, but that's not true over most of the land on this rock. Either the country isn't suitable for mech ops (eg the Thai-Malay border and similar "jungle") or the country can't afford to mechanise. So there will always be a need for light infantry and, in my experience, there are very few women who can achieve all they need to when acting in an infantry role. Women may have (in general) better stamina, but they don't have better endurance (there's a difference between the two) and strength to do basic infantry tasks. I can't see them tensioning tracks, manually exercising artillery pieces or hoisting bits of Bailey down to a river, either.

As for testosterone, it helps build muscle mass. Should we put women soldiers on testosterone until they can pass the various arms corps requirements?

I am very glad I retired 25 years ago (February this year!).

Well I certainly agree. Modern Warfare is more than just Armor/Mech ops.

there will always be a need for light infantry

E.g.
As a 2LT-1LT in the 101, we deployed to Panama 3 times to go thru Jungle Warfare training and be part of the Canal Zone Defense Force. The 101 is an Air Assault Div/Light Infantry.

Then served with 3 Mech Bns in the ROK, "West" Germany for REFORGER '88 and then the Mojave. Even as a Mech Cdr[M113], we still did a lot of dismounted ops as well as Armor/Mech attacks.

Infantry units must know how to operate in all environments, day or night, mounted or dismounted. Again, in reality Mech units still do operate dismounted at times. E.g. look at how the IDF did most of its Infantry Ops with Armor support in Gaza. The IDF Infantry used their own HAPC, Wheeled APC and the M113. But they had to do dismounted ops in MOUT. As well as they were very good at Armor/Mech ops in Sinai Desert and Golan Heights in previous wars.

Mech units do dismounted patrols, etc. day & night. You can't always take the APC/IFV everywhere. Or may want to.

in my experience, there are very few women who can achieve all they need to when acting in an infantry role

Agree … You and I plus others here, were Grunts, Tankers, etc. We know the deal. Unfortunately, in the halls of Congress, etc. Base their decisions on this topic using woke, progressive, DEI, PC, etc. standards. Not on the common sense of those who have been in Combat Arms, e.g. Infantry, Tanks, FA, etc.

As I have said in a previous post. The Female Infantry troops would have to be spread across the Infantry Cos. in the Bn. For many of the reasons some of us have mentioned.

The Co Cdr and Plt Ldrs would have to do the same. No unit even down to the smallest element, e.g. Fire Tm, AFV crew or even FA crew. Could not be all female. The logic is obvious.

As for testosterone, it helps build muscle mass. Should we put women soldiers on testosterone until they can pass the various arms corps requirements?

That would be one option. However, long term use of Testosterone, 'roids/juice, etc. can lead to permanent damage physically, etc.

Being a former jock and gym rat for many years of my life. I know unless in the rare case of Olympians. The vast majority of women cannot lift or carry heavier weight, as noted, e.g. weapons, ammo, equipment of all types, spare parts for AFVs, etc. as the vast majority of males can. Their inability to do those things and others could make them "weak-links" in the unit.