I see two potential problems.

1) Lowering of standards/lower standards for women even though no one with an ounce of common sense advocates that
2) Females being singled out on peer reviews simply for being women. I could see a woman pass the course, but say be in the bottom quartile of those passing and get singled out unfairly because of gender even though she is just as capable as many of the males.

Noble713 wrote:
Wow, imagine that. Some guy I've never even heard of already made my argument 20+ years ago.

Yeah, if your argument is that green troops with minimal experience and training have discipline issues. The Israelis tried to turn less then 30k troops into 100k troops in six months.

I also love his bias.

'Given the undisciplined nature of most Arab armies, it is likely the women did not die as quickly as the men.'

dogma wrote:
Right around 50% of all STEM degrees (BA, MA, PhD) go to women, at least if you use the NELS definition. The gap is in the hiring process, not education.

Can you cite a source?

Women hold a disproportionately low share of STEM undergraduate degrees, particularly in engineering. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation This one's from the government, so you know it must be true.

In 1997, women earned 34 percent of two-year degrees but that number dropped to 28 percent in 2007, according to the report. Although women comprise nearly half of the labor force, only one in four STEM jobs is held by a woman.
http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Workforce-Development/Fewer-studying-STEM-at-community-colleges.aspx

Noble713 wrote:
If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?

They aren't, read the study.

Basically, with some odd exceptions, women's happiness has tracked with men's but became closer to equivalent in the last relevant decade. When the author's conclude that women's happiness has fallen it is being claimed that it has done so relative to that of men as it had historically been slightly higher, in gross terms. One could actually claim that, as women and men have become more equal, their psychological disposition has also done so.

Noble713 wrote:
Why are divorce rates (>50% in the US), which are initiated by women ~70% of the time, so high?

Probably because divorce is seen as being acceptable now.

I'm also not sure why marriage is necessarily a good thing.

Jihadin wrote:Possible that women are to enter ranger school in 2013. Now thats going to be interesting. If they maintain the same standards or lower it. Will "Peered Out" still be in effect or not. Will the instructor have justify his dismissal of a female unit to a higher chain of command. 60+ days left before verdict on how this pandora box is going to go.

Ugh. That actually irks me more than the Marine Corps's approach to the problem because of the arguments that I've seen thrown around for "Why?". The most common one is that female officers are complaining that they can't pick up rank as quickly as their male peers because they don't have Ranger tabs.

Really? We're actively embroiled in a 10-year COIN conflict with no discernible solution for the proliferation of IEDs that are crippling our ability to maneuver and control the battlespace (not to mention de-limbing our expensive and valuable troops) and the gak that makes headlines and occupies the time of flag officers is "There aren't enough women generals, so we need to open up Ranger school so chicks can get promoted." Really? There's dumb (Marine Corps!), and there's Army Dumb.

Noble713 wrote:
Can you cite a source?

NELS 88. Here's a decent analysis of the raw data.

However, their definition of STEM may not align with yours. They incorporate statistical studies as STEM, which means statistics itself as well as things like political science, psychology, and the like.

Noble713 wrote:We're actively embroiled in a 10-year COIN conflict with no discernible solution for the proliferation of IEDs that are crippling our ability to maneuver and control the battlespace (not to mention de-limbing our expensive and valuable troops

What are we going to do, put an embargo on flour and agriculture? (It's been tried, they just steal your explosives instead, or have outside collaborators ship them in disguised as every day items.)

We've been trying to find a solution to IEDs for 40+ years (The Germans a lot longer). I can make a bomb powerful enough to take out a tank using nothing but a few items you can pick up at the hardware store and a land mine from a few pistol shells and a piece of tube.

The only thing that stops it is experienced troops spotting it, and it costs pennies.

Actually by allowing female officers to ranger school is kinda screwing the females over. If the standards are maintain and the instructers are not infuence in "terminating" a student then its an immense hurdle females have to overcome. If the "peered out" portions of class is still implemented then the females have to "step the hell up" and outperform the male counterparts. 61 days of abuse, sleep deprivation, food rationed, extreme exertion, harsh environment and brain overload going to weed them out quicker then hell.

Also 60% of field grade officers are ranger tabbed btw.

I can't see the ranger school standard being lowered to accomadate the females. If so the line infantry unit is screwed when these officers take command.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAmn we on IED's now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your talking a anti personnel mine Baron. IED detection is a contious evolving field. Insuregents are always coming up with neat ways to try to get a armored vehicles. Their current trick now is using photorecepter to set off an IED when being disarmed. Also we are dealing with laser trigger devices now. Notice the "Rhino" system in front of vehicles now? Looks like a flag. We come up with a way to counter and they come back with anew way to set one off

dogma wrote:

Noble713 wrote:
If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?

They aren't, read the study.

Basically, with some odd exceptions, women's happiness has tracked with men's but became closer to equivalent in the last relevant decade. When the author's conclude that women's happiness has fallen it is being claimed that it has done so relative to that of men as it had historically been slightly higher, in gross terms. One could actually claim that, as women and men have become more equal, their psychological disposition has also done so.

I think we are splitting hairs on the relative vs absolute decline, but this stuff from the Discussion/Conclusion of the article seems to paint a negative picture:

article wrote:
First, there may be other important socio-economic forces that have made women worse off. A number of important macro trends have been documented—decreased social cohesion (Putnam, 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Twenge, 2000), and increased household risk (Hacker, 2006). While each of these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond differently to these forces.

In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman’s example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy.

Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness.

I'm also not sure why marriage is necessarily a good thing.

Under today's current conditions, where there is a high chance of losing 50% of your entire life's economic acquisitions and then paying crippling child support payments, I would agree. However, I think the institution itself is a useful concept for enforcing the stability of a two-parent household that, I suspect, is more conducive to raising socially well-adjusted, disciplined, and educated offspring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I can't see the ranger school standard being lowered to accomadate the females. If so the line infantry unit is screwed when these officers take command.

I'd say just the opposite, I can definitely see it coming down from higher that "x% females must pass", especially in the initial classes as a "proof of concept". They shoved brown berets down the Rangers' throats, why not lower their standards too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Noble713 wrote:
Can you cite a source?

NELS 88. Here's a decent analysis of the raw data.

However, their definition of STEM may not align with yours. They incorporate statistical studies as STEM, which means statistics itself as well as things like political science, psychology, and the like.

Yeah, I'm talking about hard sciences like chemistry/physics/biology, engineering in all its forms, computer science, and pure mathematics.

Psychology and political science are definitely "soft" social sciences.

They shoved brown berets down the Rangers' throats, why not lower their standards too?

Actually the Rangers had a gag order on them before the announcement of the ARMY to go to black berets was made public. The rangers in turn went to tan berets. Shinseki was hated for that little gimmick.

Jihadin wrote:
Your talking a anti personnel mine Baron.

Yeah, Russian toe popper. Most people load em with 7.62, but a pistol round will work and is harder to spot. And, actually, no, I can make it an anti-tank mine, but sticking to 'build in ten min' and 'hardware store only' stuff, it'd be a radio det setup with maybe half a klick range, so they'd have to have a spotter to detonate. Mind you, it'd be really small and any random bystander could use it. Monroe effect would punch right through the soft belly of the beast. For extra fun, tie it to some anti-personnel secondaries on a timer.

Jihadin wrote:
IED detection is a contious evolving field. Insuregents are always coming up with neat ways to try to get a armored vehicles. Their current trick now is using photorecepter to set off an IED when being disarmed. Also we are dealing with laser trigger devices now. Notice the "Rhino" system in front of vehicles now? Looks like a flag. We come up with a way to counter and they come back with anew way to set one off

Lasers draw too much attention. It's better to use local Civilian communication signals. It's best if the device is designed in a way to not require any outside intervention at all. I'd do it with a combination of motion and electromagnetic sensors (passive systems are harder to spot). Take a reading when an IFV rolls over a dummy, then key your bombs to match those parameters. Throw in a mercury switch for tamper proofing and add a few ball bearings to the explosive mix for a little extra oomph if it ends up being anti-personnel instead.

You might bag a few semis if you make the emf range too broad, but regular cars could roll over it all day without setting it off.

Noble713 wrote:Back when the life experience of most women rarely extended beyond cooking, cleaning, and maybe fashion?

Yep. Because they had the same skin colour. That's kind of how racism works.

Noble713 wrote:I covered that in a previous post, but to reiterate: I've served in 4 operational units: 2 mixed-gender active Army while enlisted, 1 all-male National Guard while enlisted, and currently 1 mixed-gender active Marine Corps as an officer.

Ah. Sad to hear your experiences have been so drastically different than my own, then.

Noble713 wrote:I Google searched for "female Russian military casualties Chechnya" with negligible results. Which of these female-heavy infantry/airborne units have actually conducted extensive combat operations? Signs point to "none".

And why should they list female casualties extra if it's not as much an issue for them as it is in your nation? Germany doesn't do this either - the first female casualties made news (just like in the US), then it became "business as usual" because, in the end, a soldier is a soldier. Pretty sure there aren't even gender-separated casualty lists for the Red Army in WW2; I hope you won't dispute that women have been fighting there.

On that note I have to add that further research yielded that the Russian Airborne divisions have only begun accepting females in 2008, though, so the US aren't lagging that far behind I guess.

Noble713 wrote:In the process, though, I found this article:
http://www.opencanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SD-01-Thompson.pdf
He talks about Yugoslavia in the present tense so it's clearly and older article, but here's some choice quotes:
"Women appeared to perform well as individuals; where social cohesion is a requirement their performance suffered."

An opinion formed by judging the performance of green WW2 German cadets thrown against the Red Army onslaught in a desperate measure? Please. Next you want to tell me the Volkssturm was an indicator of the overall combat efficiency of the Wehrmacht.

Noble713 wrote:"Women soon became a liability in combat units. Men were anxious to avoid situations where women might be captured. In integrated units Israeli soldiers -- some of them hardened survivors of concentration camps -- temporarily lost some of their effectiveness when females were killed or maimed. An all female unit that took very heavy casualties in a failed assault saw neighboring male units take more casualties while dragging injured or dead women off the battlefield than would have been the case for dead and injured males."
"It would appear that the presence of women has an adverse effect on the social cohesion required for units on the battlefield. "
"It can be inferred that their prior experience has led them to the conclusion that single gender units and mixed gender units represent too dangerous a loss in battlefield efficiency to be continued."
Wow, imagine that. Some guy I've never even heard of already made my argument 20+ years ago.

And we've discussed this a few pages earlier, actually. Just because some men may still lack the discipline to differentiate between a soldier and a woman and are driven by a desire to "whiteknight" should not be a reason to penalize able-bodied and competent women from being recognized for their service, especially given how they are already regularly employed in frontline combat, and apparently with success.
I'm not saying this might not be an issue for some units, mind you. Just that - just like with the acceptance of black people - this will change over the course of 1-2 generations, when the next batch of future soldiers grows up in a culture of equality and tolerance rather than sexism and bias. You will have to start somewhere, though, so there may be complications in the first few years. We had this in Germany, too, and it has gradually declined until becoming a non-issue.

I also like how the author's "conclusion" was proven blatantly false in light of contemporary times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

Noble713 wrote:3. Working women also atrophied the social support network of housewives that working men need to operate stable and successful families, leading to a decline in the quality of upbringing for follow-on generations.

Oh, I absolutely understand that it might be hard for some men to be nudged from the gender-throne and possibly compete with their own wife, or *gasp* even assume the role of a houseman instead of having their devoted wife/servant at home. Such social changes take time to get used to, and I am under no illusions that it may not be a generational issue.

Noble713 wrote:4. Many of said women are now educating our youth, and surprise surprise, American competitiveness in science and math is abysmal.

Compared to nations with gender equality?

Noble713 wrote:The fundamental problem is that at some point in time some idiot decided that "equal" means "of exactly equal proportions and representation in all fields".

No, the fundamental problem is that some people are still trying to shove individuals into castes instead of juding them individually.

Noble713 wrote:Odd that I never see women complaining about the dearth of female coal miners, or garbage truck drivers. Seems they only want the prestigious stuff, like corporate CEO and war hero, and ignore all the other gak jobs that the *rest* of the male population does so that at least some of us can do cool stuff.

So, are you trying to argue that there are no female coal miners now? Let me guess, this is not a job for a "proper woman" as well?

Noble713 wrote:That's what the feminists have brainwashed into the past 2-3 generations of Westerners. It's wrong.

Not from my experience. Then again, I work at a place where both men and women share at least one hobby, heh.

Noble713 wrote:If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?
http://tinyurl.com/7pwvs8u

Maybe this provides an answer: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004965.html

Lynata wrote:And we've discussed this a few pages earlier, actually. Just because some men may still lack the discipline to differentiate between a soldier and a woman and are driven by a desire to "whiteknight" should not be a reason to penalize able-bodied and competent women from being recognized for their service, especially given how they are already regularly employed in frontline combat, and apparently with success.
I'm not saying this might not be an issue for some units, mind you. Just that - just like with the acceptance of black people - this will change over the course of 1-2 generations, when the next batch of future soldiers grows up in a culture of equality and tolerance rather than sexism and bias. You will have to start somewhere, though, so there may be complications in the first few years. We had this in Germany, too, and it has gradually declined until becoming a non-issue.

I also like how the author's "conclusion" was proven blatantly false in light of contemporary times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

Thompson has never really been a good source. He has more bias than a broken tape player. He addresses the 1948 war, where, again, green troops are thrown into the mix (how does being in a concentration camp make you a hardened veteran? Tough, maybe, but not necessarily a soldier) with adding women at the same time, and then ignores all the wars and violence between then and now.

Jihadin wrote:Germany pilots were fly to you die hence they have the highest scoring aces in the world. Hell Erich Hartmann shot down 4 mustangs in one sortie

Actually, the fixation Germans had on aces and the subsequent prestige and material rewards granted to squads with the highest scoring aces proved to be a considerable problem over the course of the war. German units would enter combat fixated on their aces, they worked to get their aces the most kills, and to ensure they survived.

Meanwhile allied units worked to try and inflict maximum casualties on the enemy, while protecting as many of their own pilots as possible. And at the same time worked to build not very glamourous but very effective command and control networks guided by radar, that allowed for effective command and control over air assets.

Guess which side won the Battle of Britain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:The average German pilot was better trained, more experienced, and had more kills than his US or British Equivalent. While, I grant, their medium bombers were lacking, their close air support (particularly on the Eastern Front) had superior experience and accuracy. Remember that medium and heavy bombers are largely strategic rather than tactical.

Given that the air war is fundamentally strategic, I don't know how you can just ignore the German's lack in that area.

On Japan: in fact, for most of the war, we largely got creamed "by' the Japanese, due to our inferior carrier based aircraft until the f4. Our solution: flood them with more planes then they can counter. We built over 151 carriers and beat them to death.

The what now? The Japanese lost about 20,000 planes in the air. The US lost about 4,000.

There was a very small window in which the Japanese had the best pilots in the best planes, and by 1943 that time was gone. This led to the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, where the Japanese attempted their last great air counter against the US... and were utterly slaughtered, because the US by that stage had superior pilots in superior planes.

Officially: the US air force claims 10 to 1 their favor. However, recently declassified records from both the US and former USSR showed the numbers were closer to 3.4 to 1 in favor of the Soviet pilots.

Yeah, the soviet claim of shooting down 600 odd US planes is a totally, sensible, believable thing.

With the exception of losses aboard the General Belgrano, Casualties on both sides were nearly equal. Further, as a peculiarity of that war, casualties figures almost double if you factor in post war suicides by veterans involved.

Only if you ignore the 11,000 men who surrendered to the British. Which is a completely bonkers thing to ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Example...horse drawn cart to the runway to conserve fuel.

The Germans used horse drawn carts for a large portion of their logistics. The idea of a super modern, fully motorised German army is a Nazi myth that somehow still persists to this day.

Fact is the US was miles ahead of everyone when it came to motorisation.

Japanese had the most aircraft carriers at the beginning of the war till we out produce them. Resources was a choke point for the japanese for ship production.

Yeah, if you look only at carriers. The Japanese were greatly behind otherwise, having some 200 odd ships compared to a total US fleet nearing 500 vessels.

And resources were not the only choke point, the Japanese simply lacked the industry available to the US. US shipbuilding capacity was incredible.

German Stuka was better then the Thunderbolt or Typhoon since the Stuka was designed specifically for its role.

The Stuka was outdated at the beginning of the war. It only managed to remain viable as the Germans held air superiority in the early war, and wherever the air was contested, let alone controlled by the allies, the losses of Stukas were horrific. The only reason the Germans continued to produce it was they didn't have an acceptable alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:Comparatively, if not for the loss of the carriers, the air battle for Midway would have been a serious failure for the US. Japanese losses in the air were minimal, though not insignificant.

"If not for the death of President Lincoln, the play would have been considered a considerable success."

Seriously, you can't just ignore the decisive strategic outcome of a battle, and then go on to talk about the minutiae of aircraft losses on each side.

And yes, Midway was a huge victory. The scope of that victory wasn't apparent at the time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:There's no such thing as chivalry in the military. That's why all the female officers I know are absolutely stunned/appalled when I show it towards my wife and themselves and all the male officers ask what the hell I'm doing.

Well, I don't know about the relative level of chivalry in the armed forces compared to the general population, I just know that Jihadin's claim about male soldiers getting whacked as they blindly run to save a female soldier struck me as implausible at best.

Lynata wrote:Pretty sure there aren't even gender-separated casualty lists for the Red Army in WW2; I hope you won't dispute that women have been fighting there.

Are you even reading my posts? I earlier stated that more than any other armed force in human history I suspect the Soviets accumulated the greatest amount of woman-hours and relevant data for women in combat. Considering the number of all-female units that they fielded, you probably *could* find what essentially amounts to gender-separated casualties if you had access to their records. I haven't tried using Google translate to search for such stuff in Russian yet. Maybe I'll try that tonight...

Just because some men may still lack the discipline to differentiate between a soldier and a woman and are driven by a desire to "whiteknight" should not be a reason to penalize able-bodied and competent women from being recognized for their service, especially given how they are already regularly employed in frontline combat, and apparently with success.

How do you identify which units will lose their minds at female deaths and which ones won't? And what metrics would you use to quantify whether the risk is worth the increased "effectiveness" of widespread frontline females?

Re: women being "recognized" for their service. I'm going to assume English isn't your first language because that's an awkward statement given the context. No one is saying that Sgt Mary Sue shouldn't get a Medal of Honor for killing 10 Taliban with an MRE Spoon. But at the end of the day, military service is a privilege, not a right. The government is not, and should not, be obligated to provide specific billets just because some "oppressed" minority group demands more of them.

When I worked on recruiting duty before TBS we were doing just that sort of thing and it irked me to no end. I had motivated, qualified guys calling in asking for information, and unless they were in absolute peak physical condition and ready to commit now, we pretty much turned them away. "But I want to serve my country!" "Sorry man, you need to be in better shape to be considered right now. It's very competitive." But really that wasn't the case at all. We were told to focus on minorities and females, especially for Legal officer contracts. It didn't matter if their SAT scores sucked, and they couldn't run 3 miles in 60 minutes, if it was a black female "Ummmm, I think we can work with you." Totally asinine.

I also like how the author's "conclusion" was proven blatantly false in light of contemporary times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

As I've pointed out earlier, the Caracal Battalion hasn't experienced a major combat deployment, so what has it really proved?

Noble713 wrote:3. Working women also atrophied the social support network of housewives that working men need to operate stable and successful families, leading to a decline in the quality of upbringing for follow-on generations.

Oh, I absolutely understand that it might be hard for some men to be nudged from the gender-throne and possibly compete with their own wife, or *gasp* even assume the role of a houseman instead of having their devoted wife/servant at home. Such social changes take time to get used to, and I am under no illusions that it may not be a generational issue.

Noble713 wrote:4. Many of said women are now educating our youth, and surprise surprise, American competitiveness in science and math is abysmal.

Compared to nations with gender equality?

According to this: http://www.good.is/post/american-student-performance-slips-again-china-is-number-one/
Five of the top seven performers in reading and 4 of the top 5 in mathematics are paternalistic Asian societies, mostly with a history of Confucian values. Japan is one of the most male chauvinistic societies on the planet and they rank at #5 and #8, respectively.

Noble713 wrote:The fundamental problem is that at some point in time some idiot decided that "equal" means "of exactly equal proportions and representation in all fields".

No, the fundamental problem is that some people are still trying to shove individuals into castes instead of juding them individually.

Are you going to advocate minimum quotas for short people in the NBA while you are at it? If not, you are discriminating against short people. Or you could just acknowledge that short people, being SHORT and all that, are probably best employed elsewhere. That doesn't make them second-class citizens in a short-people caste.

Noble713 wrote:Odd that I never see women complaining about the dearth of female coal miners, or garbage truck drivers. Seems they only want the prestigious stuff, like corporate CEO and war hero, and ignore all the other gak jobs that the *rest* of the male population does so that at least some of us can do cool stuff.

So, are you trying to argue that there are no female coal miners now? Let me guess, this is not a job for a "proper woman" as well?

Not sure what that document proves other than lower injury rates.

This one says females make up roughly 2% of West Virginia coal miners: http://cwcs.ysu.edu/about/current-projects/journalism/articles/female-coalminer

So where is the outrage? Why aren't people screaming for gender equality in the coal mining field? Since it's a hazardous, strenuous work field but presents fewer national security implications than playing around with the military's formula, it would be a great occupation to stress test a 50% distribution of female labor in a more controlled setting than the modern battlefield. But coal mining is a gakky job that no one wants to do. It is not in any way prestigious, so it get's no attention. Women want the infantry because it's a male-dominated field that has high social/cultural value. Honestly, infantry is a gakky job too but people are damn good at romanticizing it.

Jihadin wrote:Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first

What's that? Marines coming out in favour of preserving the status quo in the military? They've never done that, and been proven completely wrong ever before.

sebster wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first

What's that? Marines coming out in favour of preserving the status quo in the military? They've never done that, and been proven completely wrong ever before.

How DARE you question the Marines!

They're special don't you know, and they're the exception to the ruuuuuuuule!

Jihadin wrote:Nice read but one point. It involve males from a different era. Better yet it was a different ERA. It was acceptable to use the word "negro" back then. Trying it today would result in me slamming you at the least. The company commander might take it farther but SMAJ will make you worry about your carreer

Well, yeah, they were from another era. And because of the era they were in, they had really close minded ideas about well they could operate if they let the other into their previously segregated little world. And they were wrong.

They always are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped.

Well there's nothing like a good, clear piece of crazy right up at the front, and in bold no less, to tell everyone that we don't have to bother reading the rest of the post.

I hate it when that kind of crazy is hidden away until the end. You read through three paragraphs of stuff, pick out the mistakes, think about how you're going to respond, and then you get to the end and bang, there they are saying feminists want to force women to be raped.

It was thoughtful of him to make it obvious that we should just ignore him right at the start.

dogma wrote:

Noble713 wrote:
If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?

They aren't, read the study.

Dogma has the right of it.

Here is some good news for you lot my American chums.. Basically, your ALL fething unhappy!

I read an article in the week a few days ago, and it said that Americans are the most depressed and unhappy people in the Western world by a long margin, 31% of Americans have given medication for stress or depression, and the closest is way behind, New Zealand on 23%

Here in Britain and Ireland we just develop drink problems more frequently, I know which I would choose!

sebster wrote:
Guess which side won the Battle of Britain?

The side that realized that bombing radar installations is more important then hitting runways. But, I never said that the Nazi High Command did not have serious issues.

sebster wrote:
The what now? The Japanese lost about 20,000 planes in the air. The US lost about 4,000.

Actually we have no real idea at Japanese losses. Ellis compiled some figures on it, but something has always bugged me about his numbers. 'Officially' grand total we lost 45k planes. approx 22k to combat, and 19k to ground losses such as carriers sinking, bombings, etc. (Despite the fact Ellis counts carrier losses with Operational Losses for Axis countries) Despite this, 41k does not equal 45k. So where did we lose the other 4k planes?

sebster wrote:
Yeah, the soviet claim of shooting down 600 odd US planes is a totally, sensible, believable thing.

Mig 15 vs Corsair and Mustangs? Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. (BTW: do a FOIA request on US air losses in the Korea sometime. You may be surprised how much comes back black pages)

sebster wrote:
Only if you ignore the 11,000 men who surrendered to the British. Which is a completely bonkers thing to ignore.

POWs are not casualties, which is what I was talking about.

sebster wrote:
"If not for the death of President Lincoln, the play would have been considered a considerable success."

Seriously, you can't just ignore the decisive strategic outcome of a battle, and then go on to talk about the minutiae of aircraft losses on each side.

And yes, Midway was a huge victory. The scope of that victory wasn't apparent at the time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

Granted, Midway gave us a net gain of 3 carriers, but that wasn't what made it a win. Strategically and Tactically, it was barely a win. What turned it to our long term benefit was that Japanese kept those losses secret, even from their own officers. Since Japanese military planners had no idea that they were four carriers short until nearly the end of the war, yes, that had an impact.

And that was not even close to the point of what was being discussed, which was, the minutia of the air combat.

Noble713 wrote:

Lynata wrote:Pretty sure there aren't even gender-separated casualty lists for the Red Army in WW2; I hope you won't dispute that women have been fighting there.

Are you even reading my posts? I earlier stated that more than any other armed force in human history I suspect the Soviets accumulated the greatest amount of woman-hours and relevant data for women in combat.

....

The Soviets don't even know how many casualties they took. Don't tell us about their carefully honed operational analysis of male, female and mixed units in combat.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Soviets don't even know how many casualties they took. Don't tell us about their carefully honed operational analysis of male, female and mixed units in combat.

The German observation on mixed Russian units was that the reaction varied from unit to unit if the women became casualties. Some they had no more reaction then if they were men. Others they went berserk. I suspect, though cannot prove, that this may be tied to experience and training, with conscripts more likely to lose it than experienced troops.

One. Since no one catching it was the depth of the 1925 War College Report on african american in combat and the impact it had at that time. Differnet ERA different mind set

Two. Show me a documented now in play about females in combat line unit that has the effect the above played. You can't becuase there is no study of the magnitude the War College report above about females in play

@Baron the japanese lost 4 fleet carriers

@Mel that RAND report was done within the Navy not the Army.

@Sebster you actually read what I was getting at about shooting female first.

@Sebster. The german military (minus navy) was geared towards combined arms. As for the Aces the same practice appiled to all air combat units. Those who are the most experience were the leads no matter what rank when in the air.

@Sebster the Battle of Britain was lost when the Lufftwaffe stop going after airfields and other military installations and focus on terror bombing. Also the Lufftwaffe ME109 was screwed since the aircraft was to operate in conjunction with the german ground forces

@Sebster. the HE111 was seriously lacking when not used in conjunction with with the german ground and operated as a strategic bomber.

@Sebster glad you caught the operational loss of Japan aircrafts. I swear I saw someone mention 40K loss

@Sebster. The Stuka was a dedicated ground attack aircraft not a fighter/bomber like the Typhoon and Thunderbolt. Rudel though was excellent in that aircraft

@Sebster. Yes horse drawn carts were used in logistics. Towards the end of WWII when petrol was a real issue they used horse drawn carts to tow the aircraft to the flightline to conserve fuel

@Sebster. Wrong about the japanese carriers. They were the most advance at the time beginning of the war till the Essex class came on board.

@Lynata There's a difference between racism and discrimnation

@Lynata/Noble/whoever keeps bringing up the Caracal Battalion. There's a huge difference being combat deployed and running missions on your home turf IE living condition is one

@Sebster. I've witness females getting hit and how many guys that hauled ass to render assistant. Same applies to a guy getting hit but there's a erie difference to it. You have to experience combat to understand what I'm trying to say.

Female coal miners? Not sure I would like to work in the same place as my wife.

and where the hell are we on this thread

Noble713 wrote:Are you even reading my posts? I earlier stated that more than any other armed force in human history I suspect the Soviets accumulated the greatest amount of woman-hours and relevant data for women in combat.

Suspicion doesn't mean squat and will obviously be influenced by personal opinion. Let me know if your search turns up anything. That said, maybe you'll even find lists for female casualties too if you start searching for websites in Cyrillic?

Noble713 wrote:How do you identify which units will lose their minds at female deaths and which ones won't? And what metrics would you use to quantify whether the risk is worth the increased "effectiveness" of widespread frontline females?

Now that's a good question for a change. I think it could be a mixture of training (making sure there's a trusted way of reporting any incidents), experience (according to German studies, mixed units with initial difficulties overcame them after about a year) and cultural indoctrination ("women = weak = you must protect them!"), the latter of which is bound to change as time passes and the social image of a woman changes further, coming closer to that of a man.

As for the metrics, considering the dynamic environment I'm not sure if this can be accurately tracked objectively instead of relying on soldiers' opinions in the field - although this effect on morale is somewhat important already. It should be obvious, however, that it's better to have a female soldier in place to render assistance and cover your rear than not having anyone. Again: the guy that one female medic with the Silver Star had saved? He'd be dead if she hadn't accompanied that infantry unit. I think this qualifies for raised efficiency.

Conclusions
Women will make an ever-growing contribution to the accomplishment of the mission of the Armed Forces and will help shape the public image of the Bundeswehr. Initial reports from the units show that the reception of female soldiers has been extremely positive. Acceptance and integration have posed no problems. Media reporting, particularly in the press, has underlined this "success story."
After a successful start on January 2, 2001, it remains to be seen how a front-page story will become part of everyday military life. Women will undoubtedly continue to have a positive influence on the "working climate" in the former "male bastion" of the Bundeswehr. Mutual open-mindedness on the parts of both men and women will guarantee the success of this forward-looking concept.
-- NATO International Military Staff, report from the Committee on Women in NATO forces regarding Germany

Noble713 wrote:Re: women being "recognized" for their service. I'm going to assume English isn't your first language because that's an awkward statement given the context. No one is saying that Sgt Mary Sue shouldn't get a Medal of Honor for killing 10 Taliban with an MRE Spoon. But at the end of the day, military service is a privilege, not a right. The government is not, and should not, be obligated to provide specific billets just because some "oppressed" minority group demands more of them.

Actually, some people are saying that "Sgt. Mary Sue" (the choice of name speaks volumes about your bias) shouldn't get a medal, if you'd read a few pages back regarding the woman who only got a certificate. It's not what I was addressing, though. Even when they hand you a medal, if they subsequently kick you back into the rear area because policy says you're unable to do the job you just got awarded for, then that is not being recognized, because apparently your performance had zero effect on said policy.

Noble713 wrote:When I worked on recruiting duty before TBS we were doing just that sort of thing and it irked me to no end. I had motivated, qualified guys calling in asking for information, and unless they were in absolute peak physical condition and ready to commit now, we pretty much turned them away. "But I want to serve my country!" "Sorry man, you need to be in better shape to be considered right now. It's very competitive." But really that wasn't the case at all. We were told to focus on minorities and females, especially for Legal officer contracts. It didn't matter if their SAT scores sucked, and they couldn't run 3 miles in 60 minutes, if it was a black female "Ummmm, I think we can work with you." Totally asinine.

You know what? I agree. Thing is, what you are describing isn't equality, and it's not what we are discussing here.
Stuff like that is actively undermining the efforts concerning equal treatment. If I were a sceptic, I'd be inclined to suggest it was implemented as a means of sabotage.

Noble713 wrote:As I've pointed out earlier, the Caracal Battalion hasn't experienced a major combat deployment, so what has it really proved?

It proved that the author's obviously biased statements are in contrast to how the nations of the world actually saw the issue, given that the opposite of what he suggested would happen occurred. Also, your initial criticism was about "bonding" which would happen when a unit was bored (which is true), which would obviously happen more often to a unit not actively engaged in combat but ... well, doing something else.

Noble713 wrote:According to this: http://www.good.is/post/american-student-performance-slips-again-china-is-number-one/
Five of the top seven performers in reading and 4 of the top 5 in mathematics are paternalistic Asian societies, mostly with a history of Confucian values. Japan is one of the most male chauvinistic societies on the planet and they rank at #5 and #8, respectively.

And #3, Finland, is pretty much a world pioneer when it comes to gender equality. The first country allowing women to vote, the first country allowing women to get elected to parliament, and the number two on the Harvard University's Global Gender Gap report (only surpassed by Iceland). How does that fit in with your theory? Oh, and females are allowed to join any and all positions in the Finnish military, including frontline infantry and special forces (though the number of women in the SF remain very low due to the intense physical requirements).

Noble713 wrote:Are you going to advocate minimum quotas for short people in the NBA while you are at it? If not, you are discriminating against short people. Or you could just acknowledge that short people, being SHORT and all that, are probably best employed elsewhere. That doesn't make them second-class citizens in a short-people caste.

See, you are still not getting it. All short people being short is a fact, all woman being weak is not. Equality means equal chances to prove oneself, and this means that individuals should be tested as individuals, not as members of some social group due to their skin colour, sexual preference or, well, gender. All you're doing right now is repeating the very same arguments people used against blacks in the army a few decades back.

Or, to better exemplify - You are pretty much not saying that short people shouldn't join the NBA, you are saying that people with blonde hair shouldn't join the NBA because all of them are short ... instead of looking at every blonde person individually to check their actual height.

Noble713 wrote:Not sure what that document proves other than lower injury rates.

The document proves that there is such a thing as a female coal miner - something you were obviously not being aware of. Just another thing you didn't expect of women, I suppose.
I'm fairly sure I can also find proof that there are female dump truck drivers, but the point is already made by now.

Noble713 wrote:So where is the outrage? Why aren't people screaming for gender equality in the coal mining field?

You're missing the point. I am not aware that there is some sort of law against females applying for a job in the mines like there is in the military. Or is there?

Noble713 wrote:But coal mining is a gakky job that no one wants to do. It is not in any way prestigious, so it get's no attention. Women want the infantry because it's a male-dominated field that has high social/cultural value. Honestly, infantry is a gakky job too but people are damn good at romanticizing it.

Obviously, some women want to do coal mining. I also like how you describe the infantry as a "gakky job" right after a sentence stressing its prestige.
Here's a thought, why not let the women find out for themselves if they want to do this "gakky job" (just like with coal mining!) rather than telling them to stay the f out just because this prestige no longer being exclusive is hurting that precious male ego?

Jihadin wrote:One. Since no one catching it was the depth of the 1925 War College Report on african american in combat and the impact it had at that time. Differnet ERA different mind set
Two. Show me a documented now in play about females in combat line unit that has the effect the above played. You can't becuase there is no study of the magnitude the War College report above about females in play

What effect, again? The War College Report wasn't establishing new opinions, it was built on existing ones. And obviously it wasn't objective in any way, so I don't see the difference to the many "opinion pieces" that exist today about women in combat units (both for and against).

Jihadin wrote:that RAND report was done within the Navy not the Army.

It doesn't say that, does it? What's your source for this?

Jihadin wrote:There's a difference between racism and discrimnation

I don't think so. Explain please?
Imho: Racism is discrimination targeting a "race". Sexism is discrimination targeting a gender. It's both discrimination, just aimed at different social groups.

@Lynata

While 91 percent of all Navy positions are open to women, current plans call for about 13 percent of the shipboard bunks to be for female berthing. Thus, the number of positions that could simultaneously be filled by women is less than 91 percent.

At the bottom

The above threw me off my game so I do apologize

issue though is that report was done in Published 1997 by RAND before the wars

This is what we need to see
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1175.html

Actually not its tabbed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yep. Because they had the same skin colour. That's kind of how racism works.

was replied on


Back when the life experience of most women rarely extended beyond cooking, cleaning, and maybe fashion?



Thats discrimination

Jihadin wrote:

While 91 percent of all Navy positions are open to women, current plans call for about 13 percent of the shipboard bunks to be for female berthing. Thus, the number of positions that could simultaneously be filled by women is less than 91 percent.

That doesn't say the study was limited to the Navy, though. It's one possible extrapolation made from a note that mentions further complications in one of the military branches in addition to what the main article pointed out.

I too would prefer it to be clearer which units were interviewed, though.

Jihadin wrote:issue though is that report was done in Published 1997 by RAND before the wars
This is what we need to see
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1175.html
Actually not its tabbed

Hmmh, not quite the same topic (effects on frontline combat units), sadly. Though it is interesting to read about apparent issues with current policy implementation, as well as all those cases where female soldiers are already employed in capacities they are officially barred from.
Thanks for the link, I think I'll give it a more extensive read later on.

You know, maybe existing units should be allowed to "opt out" of gender mix. There seems to be a split in the military concerning the effect of female soldiers, yet given how many units seem ready to accept them, I don't see why those that don't have to have them forced upon them. This could ease the transition period, couldn't it? The number of female soldiers that meet the necessary requirements shouldn't be that high that there's a surplus, and even if there is you could always create exclusively female units.

Jihadin wrote:
was replied on
Back when the life experience of most women rarely extended beyond cooking, cleaning, and maybe fashion?
Thats discrimination

And I still don't see how discrimination based on gender is any different than discrimination based on skin colour. Whether you want women to stay in the kitchen or black people to remain in construction sites and mines, it's the same effect (inequality) originating in the same cause (prejudice based on a physical trait that differentiates a group of people from another). You could argue that discrimination against gender is - in most cases, by far not all! - "softer", but that doesn't make it less wrong.

Jihadin wrote:
@Baron the japanese lost 4 fleet carriers

We lost 1. That's what I meant by we had a gain on them of 3 carriers. While crippling strategically, it actually did little to reduce the fleets combat effectiveness at the time. This is why Spruance called off pursuit and withdrew, as once night fell, the advantage shifted to the Japanese. If they had turned and caught the US fleet at night, when the carriers were useless, the Yamato and it's escorts probably would have devastated Spruance's fleet. Which did happen when Taffy 3 was caught by Yamato and it's escorts off Samar, though more due to the escort carriers having their aircraft fitted for close air support rather then anti-ship operations.

Discrimination
•Any act or failure to act, impermissibly based in whole or in part on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, results in disparate treatment, or has a disparate impact on employees, former employees or applicants for employment.

Racism/Sexism
Personal racism or sexism is an attitude of superiority, coupled with an act to subordinate an individual, because of their race or gender.

Jihadin wrote:Discrimination
•Any act or failure to act, impermissibly based in whole or in part on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, results in disparate treatment, or has a disparate impact on employees, former employees or applicants for employment.

Racism/Sexism
Personal racism or sexism is an attitude of superiority, coupled with an act to subordinate an individual, because of their race or gender.

This definition seems to fit to what I was saying.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Soviets don't even know how many casualties they took. Don't tell us about their carefully honed operational analysis of male, female and mixed units in combat.

From David M. Glantz's Armageddon In Stalingrad Chp2 Table 9 The Personnel Strength of 62nd Army's Rifle Formations on 11 September 1942. The Table lists exact personnel for 12 divisions and 7 brigades. It cites some Soviet alphabet soup that I assume is something from their war archives. Also in Chp3, pg120 "For example, [Chuikov's] situation report late on 14 September recorded the following strengths..." again with exact personnel strengths for his units. Glantz's book on Stalingrad is so detailed you can pick almost any brigade on any day Sep-Nov '42 and know exactly where it was, what it was doing, and what sort of fighting shape it was in (and which German units had mauled it in the preceding days, too). Point being, the Soviets kept records, and some of them are quite detailed. They are not to be dismissed out of hand.

Osprey has an entire book on the subject of Soviet military women, it would be interesting to see what sources they cite.

Jihadin wrote:@Mel that RAND report was done within the Navy not the Army.

So you're saying that the Army and Marines are less competent than the Navy?


Good to know.

Didn't read further down the the posts did you Mel but straight to reply

Jihadin wrote:Didn't read further down the the posts did you Mel but straight to reply

Yes I did.

It's not my fault that you insinuated incompetence in the military.

And again you didn't read further down but straight to reply Mel

Jihadin wrote:And again you didn't read further down but straight to reply Mel

Keep lying to yourself, Jihadin, I'm sure it does wonders for your morale.

I'm not your target of the day Mel. Your in "ASSUME" mode and you know how that works

Jihadin wrote:I'm not your target of the day Mel. Your in "ASSUME" mode and you know how that works

And yet, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise, I still read the entirety of your posts-- not just the one I responded to.

Yet you go on the attack on me.

Jihadin wrote:Yet you go on the attack on me.

No, I attacked what you posted.

You just used the "I'm insulted by my own posts so I'm going to blame Meli" angle to try to avoid staying on topic.

So clarify how I am lying to myself to keep my morale up

Simple: Instead of confronting my interpretation of your post here:

Melissia wrote:So you're saying that the Army and Marines are less competent than the Navy?

Good to know.

... you chose to enter a state of denial over it.

You assumed that not I. I also corrected myself on the misread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What else am I lying to myself about

It is a perfectly valid interpretation of your post.

If the army and marines aren't competent enough to handle female recruits where the navy can, obviously that means that they are lacking in competence.

Jihadin wrote:So clarify how I am lying to myself to keep my morale up

Here's some examples.

I am not fat.
Its these jeans that make my butt look big, not my butt.
No my teenage boy can't bench press more than me. I am just allowing him to beat me.
Baldness is sexy.
I love working here.

Is there something you want to tell us, Fraz? Something to get off your chest perhaps?

Melissia wrote:Is there something you want to tell us, Fraz? Something to get off your chest perhaps?

I would really like to be driving a dog sled driven by 100 wiener dogs, filled with doggie treats, slim jims, dark rum, and a Bofors heavy machine gun. At least until late September. I hate the heat.

If the army and marines aren't competent enough to handle female recruits where the navy can, obviously that means that they are lacking in competence.

Recruits? Where does recruits factor in females in combat arms? Recruits are in training Mel. I did not debunked military readiness from that RAND report.

What kind of Bofors? Cause the one I'm thinking of is more of an autocannon.

Jihadin wrote:

If the army and marines aren't competent enough to handle female recruits where the navy can, obviously that means that they are lacking in competence.

Recruits? Where does recruits factor in females in combat arms? Recruits are in training Mel. I did not debunked military readiness from that RAND report.

I'm not sure if you're trolling (I'll assume not), but you are really pushing this artful dodger thing to the limit. I don't think the intent of my post was anywhere near as vague as you are making it out to be.

That aside, replace recruits with "personnel" if you really insist, and read it again.

Noble713 wrote:
From David M. Glantz's Armageddon In Stalingrad Chp2 Table 9 The Personnel Strength of 62nd Army's Rifle Formations on 11 September 1942. The Table lists exact personnel for 12 divisions and 7 brigades. It cites some Soviet alphabet soup that I assume is something from their war archives. Also in Chp3, pg120 "For example, [Chuikov's] situation report late on 14 September recorded the following strengths..." again with exact personnel strengths for his units. Glantz's book on Stalingrad is so detailed you can pick almost any brigade on any day Sep-Nov '42 and know exactly where it was, what it was doing, and what sort of fighting shape it was in (and which German units had mauled it in the preceding days, too). Point being, the Soviets kept records, and some of them are quite detailed. They are not to be dismissed out of hand..

I've seen translations of the Soviet records for tanks. Did you know that, in the official records, they knocked out in a single battle more Tiger tanks then were ever produced in total?

Refering to Kursk?

Thats because they had StalinMan fighting for Truth, Justice, and the Soviet Way.


not one step backwards!

Thats because they had StalinMan fighting for Truth, Justice, and the Soviet Way.


not one step backwards!

Classic example of leading from the back instead of the front. Take your chances against the germans where you might get wounded to being an example to "move the Hell forward"

Lynata wrote:
Now that's a good question for a change. I think it could be a mixture of training (making sure there's a trusted way of reporting any incidents), experience (according to German studies, mixed units with initial difficulties overcame them after about a year) and cultural indoctrination ("women = weak = you must protect them!"), the latter of which is bound to change as time passes and the social image of a woman changes further, coming closer to that of a man.

Re: trusted incident reporting. We, theoretically, have that already. Even with it, sexual assaults are believed to be under-reported by as much as a factor of 5. Okinawa has the 2nd or 3rd highest incidence of sexual assaults in the Marine Corps at 67 for 2011. Across the Corps, there is roughly 1 *reported* sexual assault per day.

As for the metrics, considering the dynamic environment I'm not sure if this can be accurately tracked objectively instead of relying on soldiers' opinions in the field - although this effect on morale is somewhat important already. It should be obvious, however, that it's better to have a female soldier in place to render assistance and cover your rear than not having anyone. Again: the guy that one female medic with the Silver Star had saved? He'd be dead if she hadn't accompanied that infantry unit. I think this qualifies for raised efficiency.

If your argument is "a woman raises efficiency compared to nobody" I'd *probably* agree. Extra bodies can always be put to use. If your argument is "a woman raises efficiency compared to a man of equal physical ability", that's where I have issue. Women have their uses in our contemporary operating environment because of the cultural issues in Muslim/tribal countries. So those Female Engagement Teams are an asset for strip searching suspected insurgents disguised as females, searching women-only areas in homes, etc. Much of this utility would go away in less socially conservative environments. But when it comes to changing the units whose primary purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat......."If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It".

There's a *LOT* of things that are structurally unsound/broken in the Marine Corps. Trust me. But our resources are not infinite. There are only so many man-hours and dollars available to apply to any specific task. As such, we have to prioritize things according to a cost-benefit analysis of what will improve our warfighting ability the greatest. For example, fixing the shitshow that is DoD's IT infrastructure/networking should probably be in the Top 10 on the priority list. I've regularly seen 1-3 days of two-week exercises wasted because the database of users with Secret access had been wiped, or because people couldn't log onto the computer/chatroom/website and no one could figure out why. That's 14% of your overall training time lost due to crap IT support. It's a clear, quantifiable deficiency for which we can formulate quantifiable solutions (switch to different operating systems, spend $xxxx on new servers, etc.).

You agree that we can't clearly quantify the potential gains from female infantry integration, so why should be such a high priority? Determining whether women should operate in the combat arms, and then rolling out all the support necessary to make that transition, should be priority #99,999.

Noble713 wrote:As I've pointed out earlier, the Caracal Battalion hasn't experienced a major combat deployment, so what has it really proved?

It proved that the author's obviously biased statements are in contrast to how the nations of the world actually saw the issue, given that the opposite of what he suggested would happen occurred. Also, your initial criticism was about "bonding" which would happen when a unit was bored (which is true), which would obviously happen more often to a unit not actively engaged in combat but ... well, doing something else.

Being bored in garrison is nowhere near as dangerous (dangerous as in "incident prone") as boredom in the field/in-theatre, where the stress levels are higher and people don't have the recreational options available that they do at home. Stuff like this and this almost never happens with "garrison boredom".

Noble713 wrote:According to this: http://www.good.is/post/american-student-performance-slips-again-china-is-number-one/
Five of the top seven performers in reading and 4 of the top 5 in mathematics are paternalistic Asian societies, mostly with a history of Confucian values. Japan is one of the most male chauvinistic societies on the planet and they rank at #5 and #8, respectively.

And #3, Finland, is pretty much a world pioneer when it comes to gender equality. The first country allowing women to vote, the first country allowing women to get elected to parliament, and the number two on the Harvard University's Global Gender Gap report (only surpassed by Iceland). How does that fit in with your theory?

Statistical anomaly.

Noble713 wrote:But coal mining is a gakky job that no one wants to do. It is not in any way prestigious, so it get's no attention. Women want the infantry because it's a male-dominated field that has high social/cultural value. Honestly, infantry is a gakky job too but people are damn good at romanticizing it.

Obviously, some women want to do coal mining. I also like how you describe the infantry as a "gakky job" right after a sentence stressing its prestige. Here's a thought, why not let the women find out for themselves if they want to do this "gakky job" (just like with coal mining!) rather than telling them to stay the f out just because this prestige no longer being exclusive is hurting that precious male ego?

Have you given any thought to the 2nd and 3rd order effects of undermining the male ego? What happens when men lose the ways by which they channel their masculinity in a socially constructive manner?

Re: letting women "find out for themselves." Lemme let you in on a little secret. The entire concept of an organized military revolves around subordinating the *desires* of the individual to the *needs* of the organization. I'd like to "find out for myself" if having a camp whore at my beck and call would increase my productivity by decreasing my mental stress. But besides being morally untenable (in the US at least) it's also logistically unsupportable for every officer to have a personal sex slave in the field.

Women in the infantry isn't *needed*; it's somebody's pet project, one which is largely supported from outside the organization. As such, it's priority level of being addressed by the senior leadership should rank roughly around fulfilling my desire to rail out Suzie the Serving Wench in my tent every day @ 2000hrs (Priority #99,998).

Jihadin wrote:Refering to Kursk?

Among others. If you want a real picture of what the Russians were going through, look at the requests for reinforcements and additional supplies. They tell a somewhat different story compared to the numbers that were on the reports.

Noble713 wrote:Re: trusted incident reporting. We, theoretically, have that already. Even with it, sexual assaults are believed to be under-reported by as much as a factor of 5. Okinawa has the 2nd or 3rd highest incidence of sexual assaults in the Marine Corps at 67 for 2011. Across the Corps, there is roughly 1 *reported* sexual assault per day.

To me, that implies a fundamental flaws with how your policies are applied. You also, theoretically, have psychologic counseling and still you have nutjobs going around killing people or torturing prisoners. Stuff like this is bound to happen in any army in a combat theatre (or even back home in a garrison), just like police brutality is bound to happen in areas of social friction, yet the culture propagated in an individual unit or the military in general plays a huge role in this, as do different policies implemented and their level of enforcement, which is why percentages concerning these incidents are so difficult across various branches or nations. It's not like Germany didn't have a couple such cases as well.

Bottom line: this is nothing a military has to accept. All it needs is a will to change these things, and to "man the f up" and accept responsibility for failures in one's command rather than attempting cover-ups or just letting stuff slide because one cannot be bothered.

Other than that, what you have in terms of trusted incident reporting is a good start, for reports imply that it has been getting better already. It's just not where it should be. Yet.

Noble713 wrote:If your argument is "a woman raises efficiency compared to nobody" I'd *probably* agree. Extra bodies can always be put to use. If your argument is "a woman raises efficiency compared to a man of equal physical ability", that's where I have issue. Women have their uses in our contemporary operating environment because of the cultural issues in Muslim/tribal countries. So those Female Engagement Teams are an asset for strip searching suspected insurgents disguised as females, searching women-only areas in homes, etc. Much of this utility would go away in less socially conservative environments. But when it comes to changing the units whose primary purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat......."If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It".

I also believe that an inclusion of female troops would raise efficiency compared to mono-gendered units (and not just due to easier dealings with the civil population, even though one could argue this is part of daily ops now) - but this is something that varies greatly between individual reports (many of which influenced by exceptionally good or bad performances of individual female soldiers, and others influences by positive or negative bias) and there is unfortunately no accurate way to prove it one way or the other, so I'm not pressing the issue. Unless someone else does and tries to push the argument towards the "negative effect" angle.
Simply stating that female troops are a manpower reserve as of yet largely untapped and thus wasted, on the other hand, is just so much easier.

Noble713 wrote:You agree that we can't clearly quantify the potential gains from female infantry integration, so why should be such a high priority?

Because of such things, mainly:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/ns/us_news/t/army-marines-miss-recruiting-goals-again/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018165430.htm

Again, just look back to that story with the female medic dragged into accompanying an infantry unit just because no one else was available for the job.

And in reaction to that, this happened: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/more_entering_army_with_criminal_records
This could also tie in directly with the aforementioned incidents - not accounting for all, obviously, but you get the idea. In fact, that Green incident in 2006? The guy was only allowed to join up because of one of these waivers. Might have been better if some woman of equal prowess and a clean record would have gotten the job.

Apparently, at least according to this article, waivers have been scaled back again (and a good thing I say) as the military is okay with downsizing its force a bit. At the same time, however, the head of FORSCOM is concerned with finding the right ratio between manpower and quality. I for one am convinced that it might be better to turn to women and homosexuals before recruiting thugs, but of course that's just my opinion as an outside observer.

Or the US just have to suck it up and limit their power projection accordingly to reflect the nature of a downsized military. That's the third option.

Noble713 wrote:Being bored in garrison is nowhere near as dangerous (dangerous as in "incident prone") as boredom in the field/in-theatre, where the stress levels are higher and people don't have the recreational options available that they do at home. Stuff like this and this almost never happens with "garrison boredom".

Point taken. Usually makes for some good unique memories, though.

Still, garrisons have some crazy gak happening from time to time, too. Hazing sadly isn't limited to units actually deployed, though the nation with the most obvious (known) problems regarding this seems to be Russia.

Noble713 wrote:Have you given any thought to the 2nd and 3rd order effects of undermining the male ego? What happens when men lose the ways by which they channel their masculinity in a socially constructive manner?

I'm convinced that society would be better off accepting that what is commonly regarded as "masculinity" or "femininity" is not actually limited to a single gender.
Some people still have to learn to accept this. Just a matter of time.

Noble713 wrote:Re: letting women "find out for themselves." Lemme let you in on a little secret. The entire concept of an organized military revolves around subordinating the *desires* of the individual to the *needs* of the organization.

The needs of your organisation seem to imply a shortage in able-bodied, willing and qualified personnel of sound character. Perhaps you should subordinate your desires regarding the role of women to that.

Aside from that, you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying. Your nation's military relies in volunteers over conscription, and you should not simply assume that 100% of men who sign up will enjoy whatever role they end up in (else you wouldn't have people going AWOL) and 0% of women will. If you're apparently willing to let men find out for themselves, then I don't see why you are objecting to women having the same right and be tested by the same standards, unless of course you're just still clinging to bias. Or are you advocating forced conscription now?
Or was this just an attempted distraction from the original issue by splitting hairs, like complaining that the slogan "Be All You Can Be" should rather read "Be All We Allow You To Be"?

Noble713 wrote:Women in the infantry isn't *needed*; it's somebody's pet project, one which is largely supported from outside the organization. As such, it's priority level of being addressed by the senior leadership should rank roughly around fulfilling my desire to rail out Suzie the Serving Wench in my tent every day @ 2000hrs (Priority #99,998).

Apparently it *is* needed when frontline units go short on manpower and have to smuggle in female reinforcements from desk jobs in the rear.

Also, this might be a "German thing", but I have come to believe in the military being firmly linked to the population it intends to serve (we called this principle "citizen in uniform") rather than existing apart of it in a microcosmos that defies all the things their society stands for. And no, I'm not talking of this "lols democracy in the military" BS, but rather that I don't see why military service should discriminate and exclude people of a certain religion, skin colour, sexual preference or gender as long as they are able to do the job their nation wants them to do, just because those soldiers that came before them managed to establish a tradition. You know how that sounds? Like that guy who thought the battlefields of WW2 still had a place for cavalry, with horses and sabres and stuff.

Some people just seem to regard the preservation of this bastion of male ego as ranking higher in their list of priorities than actually having a functioning military, or improving it further. This is nothing new. Every generation, a military force faces changes in society and/or technology it has to adapt to, and every generation there's some who dislike change as they feel it threatens the identity of that which they have come to venerate.

To me, that implies a fundamental flaws with how your policies are applied. You also, theoretically, have psychologic counseling and still you have nutjobs going around killing people or torturing prisoners. Stuff like this is bound to happen in any army in a combat theatre (or even back home in a garrison), just like police brutality is bound to happen in areas of social friction, yet the culture propagated in an individual unit or the military in general plays a huge role in this, as do different policies implemented and their level of enforcement, which is why percentages concerning these incidents are so difficult across various branches or nations. It's not like Germany didn't have a couple such cases as well.

Noble lets not take this one to bat. Thats a whole new thread

Other than that, what you have in terms of trusted incident reporting is a good start, for reports imply that it has been getting better already. It's just not where it should be. Yet.

Agree with you on this but for a report to be filed the individual (female or male) has to report the incident. EOA's and the CoC cannot "lead" the indivdual into making a report. There are two types of report. Informal and formal

Informal and Formal Complaint. An informal complaint is any complaint that as soldier, family member or DA civilian does not wish to file in writing. Informal complaints may be resolved directly by the individual, with the help of another unit member, the commander or other person in the complainant’s chain of command. A formal complaint is one that complaint files in writing and swears to the accuracy of the information. Formal complaints require specific actions, are subject to timelines, and require documentation of the actions taken.

I also believe that an inclusion of female troops would raise efficiency compared

Females are not enhancers to unit readiness/efficiency. Readiness/efficiency are maintain by training and mentoring and the occasional ass chewing from an NCO. NCO's ensure that everything is in a high state of readiness.

And in reaction to that, this happened: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/more_entering_army_with_criminal_records
This could also tie in directly with the aforementioned incidents - not accounting for all, obviously, but you get the idea. In fact, that Green incident in 2006? The guy was only allowed to join up because of one of these waivers. Might have been better if some woman of equal prowess and a clean record would have gotten the job.

Apparently, at least according to this article, waivers have been scaled back again (and a good thing I say) as the military is okay with downsizing its force a bit. At the same time, however, the head of FORSCOM is concerned with finding the right ratio between manpower and quality. I for one am convinced that it might be better to turn to women and homosexuals before recruiting thugs, but of course that's just my opinion as an outside observer.

US Army was in full swing to plus size the BDE's but I agree some troops should not have been let in. Waste of my time and my commander/1st SGT time to chapter out individuals who "went back to their old habit"

Apparently it *is* needed when frontline units go short on manpower and have to smuggle in female reinforcements from desk jobs in the rear

Clarify smuggle please. I've seen femalesbeing used as gunners on convoys. I've seen them used on security of the perimeter of a cordone search/block search. I've seen them used on check points. I've never seen them used on actively searching and engaging the enemy.

Nice post Lynata I liked it...not buttering you up for Ork love but the above seems you mixing up a "combat role" to a "combat MOS"

I for one am convinced that it might be better to turn to women and homosexuals before recruiting thugs

That's because it is. Those who have a history of breaking the law are likely to continue doing so, whether that law is military or civil.

Melissia wrote:

I for one am convinced that it might be better to turn to women and homosexuals before recruiting thugs

That's because it is. Those who have a history of breaking the law are likely to continue doing so, whether that law is military or civil.

Obviously!

Brains is almost everything as far as I'm concerned. Better to have a less fit intelligent, professional and resourceful soldier than an extremely fit idiot with meat for brains and a swollen adrenal gland.

A smart individual is more important than a fit individual for 99% of tasks anyway... rarely do you need to hit the same levels of fatigue and exertion required to pass basic training (Commando training obviously, not that nancy boy 6 pull ups gak they teach in boot for grunts) which is why I advocate women being allowed in if they complete the training.

I mean, sure they aren't as strong or fast, but Girls can be as smart as men.

Well.. almost.

Intelligence is directly correlated to the number of links that a brain has between its neurons, and women have naturally more links than men of equal mental fitness.

But that aside, a lot of the problems that we have as far as intelligence goes for BOTH genders is directly related to our culture. Those who show intelligence or are dedicated to their studies are often mocked by those who are not, and those who do neither are often more popular. Thus young people are discouraged from developing their intellect.

Jihadin wrote:Agree with you on this but for a report to be filed the individual (female or male) has to report the incident. EOA's and the CoC cannot "lead" the indivdual into making a report.

Absolutely. They can influence the readiness of individuals to do so, though. A lot depends on trust, I think - as well as people having a "feeling" for what is right and wrong. I imagine lots of silly stuff may remain unpunished because of an atmosphere downplaying the significance of incidents. And then there's the sad fact that some reports are just not followed up on. Granted, this I only heard in connection with certain cases of prisoner abuse, but if some officers disregard that, it's a small step to disregarding reports of abuse between soldiers.

Actually, scratch that, I have read of ignored reports about abuse between soldiers, but that was a thing between men, and it was 1980. A German article I stumbled upon months ago out of mere coincidence, about serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, or more accurately about a guy called Billy Capshaw who happened to be his room mate as they both served in the Army: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/24364/leben_mit_dem_menschenfresser.html

Quick 'n dirty translation from one of the segments - creepy stuff:

"Ten years ago, as Billy Capshaw arrived in the US garrison in German Baumholder, the new medic came upon pure chaos. "It was crazy. The Army still hadn't recovered from Vietnam - most of the soldiers were drunk every evening", he remembers on the website survivingjeffreydahmer.org, on which he later publicized the notes he made during his therapy. In this oppressive environment, the pudgy 17 year old medic Capshaw needed nothing more than an ally. At first, he seemed to have found him in his roommate Dahmer, senior by three years and the only other soldier who hadn't been to Vietnam. 'At first he seemed like a really nice guy. He had charisma.'

Capshaw couldn't know that his roommate had an obsession gutting cats and dogs as a child because this gave him a feeling of power. He also did not knew that Dahmer started to have fantasies of sexual violence at 14. Most of all, Capshaw did not know that the man with whom he now shared a room had picked up the hitchhiker Steven Hicks, lured him to his home, slayed him with a barbell, cut him into pieces and buried his remains in the yard just one and a half years earlier.

After a few days, the friendly facade of his roommate began to crumble: Dahmer tried more and more to control him, began to beat him. Capshaw complained to his superiors - but these only laughed at him, called him a "pussy". Dahmer started to isolate him systematically, having the only key to the room and keeping Capshaw under watch. When Dahmer left the room, he locked his roommate in. Calls and letters he intercepted just as much as Capshaw's pay. The superiors ignored everything, as Capshaw bewilderedly recalls: 'I never appeared to exercises. I never did the jobs I was assigned to. Still I got promoted.'

Dahmer became more and more violent. Soon it did not suffice to pummel his victim just with fists anymore, so he took a steel bar from his bedstead to beat him - on the fingers, against the tibia, but most of all on the joints, as this hurt the most. Whenever Billy was injured so badly that he had to be brought to the infirmary, his tormentor did this himself. There, he appeared so calm and convincing that the doctors believed his assertions that he would merely watch out for his friend and was not the cause of these injuries - even though Capshaw claimed the opposite."


Now, this was 30 years ago, and I choose not to believe that this would be possible today. A lot has changed since then, from morale to guidelines to training. What I'm criticizing is not the policies or safeguards in place. What I'm criticizing is that all of them don't mean much when the chain breaks somewhere in the middle because Captain John Random files a report in his bin.

Obviously, there are ways to circumvent the direct report and bring attention to an incident if one feels as if he or she is being ignored. But the mere need to do so still affects the air of trust and interpersonal cameraderie, the latter of which can further affect the willingness of soldiers to report something. The police force faces the very same problems. A lot of private companies too, I reckon. It's one of the few negative aspects of esprit du corps, and the only way to deal with this is nurturing a more open and more tolerant culture and atmosphere. Where "masculinity" and comradeship aren't confused with the need to fall in line and keep quiet even when something very wrong is going on.

Don't ask me for the best ways to accomplish this, though. It's a very complicated topic. If reports from female soldiers are to be believed, however, it gets better with time. It doesn't take much to assume that black people faced similar issues when they were new in these positions. Discrimination is a wound in the fabric of society, but a wound that can heal with time.

Jihadin wrote:Females are not enhancers to unit readiness/efficiency.

According to some reports they are.
Ironically, this time, masculinity seems to have an involuntarily positive effect - dedicated female soldiers are often said to work twice as hard because they feel this helps them getting accepted, and on the flipside you may have some male soldiers becoming "infected" with this competitive spirit and trying to "save face" by not showing signs of weakness in front of a girl who is able to keep up. The end result would seem to benefit the unit as a whole, though of course like with any competition there are certain dangers associated with taking it too far.

I'd say this effect is likely to diminish as time passes, however, as it is based on the very same "women = weaker" generalisation that the very idea of females in the military seems to attack. I suppose it would fade into the background at about the same time as the whole idea of male soldiers supposedly reacting when witnessing a female's death. Which I still am somewhat sceptical towards, given that violence of military forces against women is a consistent theme throughout the history of warfare. If there was some sort of genetical gender-based switch supposedly granting females immunity or clemency, it obviously doesn't work very well in an environment of troops trained to kill the enemy.

But then, there also is the factor of finding the right people for the right job. This has less to do with females, but more with tapping unused manpower resources in general. If you want the best people for your force, limiting any applicants by categories as arbitrary as gender obviously results in a smaller pool of candidates - meaning you might miss out on top candidates, meaning that this unit will not operate at the same level of efficiency it could with increased recruitment.

Jihadin wrote:Clarify smuggle please. I've seen femalesbeing used as gunners on convoys. I've seen them used on security of the perimeter of a cordone search/block search. I've seen them used on check points. I've never seen them used on actively searching and engaging the enemy.

That was, again, referring to that medic who got the Silver Star - she got pulled out because she worked in a role she's officially not supposed to (as women supposedly aren't capable of doing what she did). I don't like parading her around as if she'd be the sole example, but maybe you just missed it.

Jihadin wrote:the above seems you mixing up a "combat role" to a "combat MOS"

Hmmh, you've got a point there - but then again, to me it looks as if there is little difference between the two nowadays? I know how it's supposed to be officially, but the policy seems to go the way of any plan, to borrow from Clausewitz.

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat. Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being 'assigned', women are 'attached in direct support of' the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.
"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."
-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002_3.html

The distinction between combat role and combat MOS is a technicality. Policies intending to justify women for one but ban the other are, I think, just manifestations of the same BS conservative traditionalist-protectionist attitude that keep erupting about things like that damn CIB, because apparently the unit you belong to says more about your right to wear this than what you have actually done in combat. The military needs more equality - not just in questions of gender or sexual preference, but also concerning how the various branches regard each other. There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of pride and even rivalry between the branches (I've experienced and had fun with it myself), but at some point it becomes petty and ridiculous. For the CIB, I think a more comradely reaction would have been to say "this guy has earned the honour to be a honorary member of our club" rather than going "he's no Infantry, he shouldn't be allowed to wear it!"

mattyrm wrote: I mean, sure they aren't as strong or fast, but Girls can be as smart as men.
Well.. almost.

Funny development, actually - after decades of coming in behind men, then slowly catching up, this year women have for the first time surpassed the male average!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html?ITO=1490
I'd chalk it up to women now being able to experience the same "mind-encouraging" activities as men, so they develop more equally. Not exactly sure what led them to coming out on top - could be coincidence, or women actually exposing themselves more than men to said experiences now. See also what Mel wrote->

Melissia wrote:But that aside, a lot of the problems that we have as far as intelligence goes for BOTH genders is directly related to our culture. Those who show intelligence or are dedicated to their studies are often mocked by those who are not, and those who do neither are often more popular. Thus young people are discouraged from developing their intellect.

I suppose intelligence just isn't "masculine" enough.
(assuming that "masculinity" is a concept still propagated as an ideal for everyone to achieve)

[edit] Wow, didn't realize how large this monster of text has become. Sorry all!

Intelligence is directly correlated to the number of links that a brain has between its neurons, and women have naturally more links than men of equal mental fitness.

Correlation does not equal causation, and your sentence contradicts itself in the second half.

Now, this was 30 years ago, and I choose not to believe that this would be possible today. A lot has changed since then, from morale to guidelines to training. What I'm criticizing is not the policies or safeguards in place. What I'm criticizing is that all of them don't mean much when the chain breaks somewhere in the middle because Captain John Random files a report in his bin.

That was complete failure on his NCO. Hell I'm not sure I can call him a NCO (the guy in charge of Capshaw and Dahlmar). If he was going straight to the officers over the issue that means "jumping the chain of command" which is not a good thing. I lay this one directly at the feet of the NCO. I also though had one do it to me (jumping the chain of command") that made me madder in Hell when I got called to the carpet and blindsided with the issue. The pause between the professional ass chewing I was getting gave me enough time to look at my soldier and ask "When were you going to tell me?". Professional ass chewing slide to him now. A lot have changed from then to now. Its the individual and NCO that forms a "social heiarchery (sp)

According to some reports they are.

Thats some report. Doesn't meet the rubber to the road. Everyone pitches in I could careless about gender. Even sandbag details overseas it doesn't matter the rank or gender. Its a safety issue (sandbag walls to prevent shrapnel going through a tent or soft shell building. Only time I seperate the genders is when some serious heavy lifting is involve for an extended period. Its a trade off then. Men do the lifting the ladies bring the cases of water...why the difference..the water pallet 100 ft away (I also know the stamina of my females from PT before deployment) its "FoB in a Can" hard to describe but a mobile base camp with everything a battalion needs shoved in a container that makes you seriously think how they manage to squeeze the last two feet of equipment in a shoebox

Her CoC screwed up and I'm sure General Letters of Reprimand was slammed into the 201 folders. Still though I'm not going take away what she accomplish. Her chain of command had to put in a 638 for an impact award instead of waiting towards the end of deployment is probaly what got her pulled when the wording of the words gave a huge indication what the Cav unit was doing. Me personnaly I'd shoehorned my officer into waiting towards the end of deployment then drop the megabomb. Yes I will admit I play dirty when it involves the mission and my soldiers but mission first because my CoC (Bn level and above) are Fobbits

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat. Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being 'assigned', women are 'attached in direct support of' the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.
"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."

Goes with me playing dirty. Attach instead of assigned. I throw in "she always in the last vehicle"....last vehicle of what.

Not going over CIB, CMB, EMB, EIB, Rangers again. Till next year 2013

As a leader its a gamble on when and what decision to make on who to do what in shooting situation or to complete the mission. I will not though choose to send a female charging into a shoot out first. Last thing I need and everyone else need is to hear her getting badly wounded and everyone taking the dreaded "oh gak" pause.

Jihadin wrote:Me personnaly I'd shoehorned my officer into waiting towards the end of deployment then drop the megabomb. Yes I will admit I play dirty when it involves the mission and my soldiers but mission first because my CoC (Bn level and above) are Fobbits

Good call. I have no idea how long you can actually wait with this, but her being pulled back for the sake of political correctness hurts the men (one less qualified medic around) as much as it hurts her (basically being told her nation doesn't want her there).

Jihadin wrote:As a leader its a gamble on when and what decision to make on who to do what in shooting situation or to complete the mission. I will not though choose to send a female charging into a shoot out first. Last thing I need and everyone else need is to hear her getting badly wounded and everyone taking the dreaded "oh gak" pause.

Yeah, understandable. The US' current social climate, at least from how the article made it sound, still appears to make a female soldier being wounded or even killed way more problematic than the same happening to a male. As if that wouldn't be equally bad.

That LtCol. Provancha would've apparently gotten in trouble, too, if that other medic - some woman named Guay - would've been wounded or killed. Did you read the 4th page of that article? It also briefly describes the process of bonding with a unit of the 82nd Airborne as an example, and how scepticism slowly turned into acceptance. Just like the experiences reported by German soldiers, so the potential seems to be there. I'd wager that adverse conditions and jointly braving dangers have a binding effect on people in general, regardless of whether it's in the military or not.
In a way, due to these conditions happening faster and more often in the military than in most other professions, this could even be a chance to export this sense of equality into society for a change, rather than waiting until it is slowly trickling in. The conditions faced by these frontline units have already led to policies being circumvented. All that's left to do is revisiting said policies and reassessing their value in the face of the current reality - both on the nonlinear battlefields of the 21st century, as well as a symbol of a society that is supposed to value equality.

Agreed about the NCO thing by the way. From what it sounds like, you seem to be the right guy for the job. Good luck out there, to you and your gang.

BaronIveagh wrote:The side that realized that bombing radar installations is more important then hitting runways. But, I never said that the Nazi High Command did not have serious issues.

Meh, radar was repairable - the real reason to hit it was to follow up in the subsequent days with further strikes on British airfields, to get the planes while they were still on the ground, not alerted by radar. The Nazis tried that for some time and never really made serious in-roads.

Actually we have no real idea at Japanese losses. Ellis compiled some figures on it, but something has always bugged me about his numbers. 'Officially' grand total we lost 45k planes. approx 22k to combat, and 19k to ground losses such as carriers sinking, bombings, etc. (Despite the fact Ellis counts carrier losses with Operational Losses for Axis countries) Despite this, 41k does not equal 45k. So where did we lose the other 4k planes?

So you agree the argument of the US throwing massed numbers of planes at the Japanese was wrong?

Mig 15 vs Corsair and Mustangs? Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. (BTW: do a FOIA request on US air losses in the Korea sometime. You may be surprised how much comes back black pages)

Sure, but the scope for cover up of pilot and aircraft losses in a democratic country with a free press is so far from the scope in a totalitarian state its not comparable. Trusting a Soviet report from that era is just not sensible.

POWs are not casualties, which is what I was talking about.

But the little trick you're playing is reducing the discussion to just that. When talking about the quality of one army or another, the ability to undertake manouvres that force the surrender of large numbers of enemy troops is a very important. When most of the soldiers lost from one are guys who surrendered, you don't just ignore that.

If you ignore the whole divisions that were captured by German encirclement during the blitz, the actual casualties suffered come up fairly even. Well, not even, but far more favourable than successful Russian operations, like Kursk.

Granted, Midway gave us a net gain of 3 carriers, but that wasn't what made it a win. Strategically and Tactically, it was barely a win. What turned it to our long term benefit was that Japanese kept those losses secret, even from their own officers. Since Japanese military planners had no idea that they were four carriers short until nearly the end of the war, yes, that had an impact.

No, not having the carriers had a major impact on Japanese operations, not the lying about them. I mean, seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:@Sebster you actually read what I was getting at about shooting female first.

Yes, I did. The problem was that you provided immense detail for every part of your story except the actual point - your claim that soldiers would act recklessly to save a woman in a way they wouldn't act to save man.

@Sebster. The german military (minus navy) was geared towards combined arms. As for the Aces the same practice appiled to all air combat units. Those who are the most experience were the leads no matter what rank when in the air.

Actually while Germany did develop some combined arms techniques, and effectively advanced the close co-ordination of air and land assets, this was always limited by their inability to develop operational planning objectives, and so was only deployed in specific tactical circumstances.

@Sebster the Battle of Britain was lost when the Lufftwaffe stop going after airfields and other military installations and focus on terror bombing. Also the Lufftwaffe ME109 was screwed since the aircraft was to operate in conjunction with the german ground forces

That's the popular story, yes. Any study of serious military history will tell you otherwise. In no month throughout the war did Britain ever end the war with less planes than when they started.

@Sebster. The Stuka was a dedicated ground attack aircraft not a fighter/bomber like the Typhoon and Thunderbolt. Rudel though was excellent in that aircraft

Yes, and one that was outdated by the start of the war. The Nazis had planes to replace it with a more modern aircraft, but supply limitations prevented that.

@Sebster. Yes horse drawn carts were used in logistics. Towards the end of WWII when petrol was a real issue they used horse drawn carts to tow the aircraft to the flightline to conserve fuel

No, not just at the end of the war, throughout the whole war. Germany simply wasn't the technological army that propaganda portrayed, and their logistics were particularly old school.

@Sebster. Wrong about the japanese carriers. They were the most advance at the time beginning of the war till the Essex class came on board.

I never said they weren't highly advanced. They were. Please read what I said - I stated the Japanese had superiority only if you consider the carriers and nothing else. The US had a vastly larger, and superior overall fleet.

@Sebster. I've witness females getting hit and how many guys that hauled ass to render assistant. Same applies to a guy getting hit but there's a erie difference to it. You have to experience combat to understand what I'm trying to say.

Meh, "you don't know because you haven't been combat" is the same old bs that's been used to argue against every army reform. It was bs when it was segregation, and it was bs when it was gays.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:I've seen translations of the Soviet records for tanks. Did you know that, in the official records, they knocked out in a single battle more Tiger tanks then were ever produced in total?

My favourite is from the Vietnamese, who claim at the battle of Long Tan they took out three Australian tanks. Despite Australia not deploying a single armoured vehicle, let alone a tank, in the whole of our time in Vietnam.

Anyhow, there's a marked difference between Soviets military claims that come from the political class, and actual Soviet military records of operations. A lot of time has been spent by a lot historians studying the latter, in order to debunk the former. Records of the positioning of Soviet units at Stalingrad sounds a lot like the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Intelligence is directly correlated to the number of links that a brain has between its neurons, and women have naturally more links than men of equal mental fitness.

Not really. Every study into general intelligence has only really managed to establish that there is no such thing. Instead there's a variety of different aptitudes, with no general correlation between them (in some cases there's a loose negative correlation). Combining those into a general intelligence means giving a weighting to spatial intelligence compared to memory - it's an impossible, subjective thing.

And yes, men tend to perform a little better in some of those aptitudes, while women tend to perform a little better in others (though in most cases the difference is minor, and utterly swamped by the variation from person to person).