At a glance, it would appear that it is more physically demanding to become a sniper than it is to become a Ranger.
Thus, I suspect that very, very few individuals would be able to qualify, and I seriously doubt the Marines will drop those requirements in order to get less physically capable snipers that are out of action 6 times as much from injury- regardless of their courage or skill.
It just doesn't stand up to logic. There are many ways to serve the country, and the whole goal of the military is for it to use you in the way that you will most benefit it- not the way that will make you feel the best about it.
Gitz....you didn't post the perfect score for scout snipers in the USMC you posted the perfect score for Basic Marines SS or Scout Snipers do the same tests but they have "in house" tests that are much more grueling.
I mean, at this point why are we concentrating so hard on the females angle? Shouldn't anyone who wants a crack at Infantry get a shot?
Pre-existing medical conditions like say hemophilia or whatever shouldn't be a concern, just because there is a significantly higher chance for training injuries. I mean, if someone happens to be morbidly obese with bad knees, we should at least be willing to swear 'em in, fly 'em to basic, kit them out and give them the opportunity, right? Otherwise we are discriminating.
It actually costs a lot of money to send people to training. Like, a lot of money. Depending on your MOS, it can cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, just to train someone. You have to be able to screen out people efficiently so you're not wasting millions of taxpayer dollars every training cycle. If you've got flat feet or scoliosis or the like, you pretty much get screened out because your odds of injury skyrocket. The purpose of the study is to get more information about how females perform under these circumstances in order to determine if enough women perform well enough that allowing women to attend the training is a reasonable investment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?
Combat isn't about participation metals or pats on the back for trying hard. If you're trying to justify it from that angle, you have a fundamentally wrong mindset.
CptJake wrote: Dogma picked at the main study and my comments on it, and his picking was based on feelings and anecdotal evidence about his experience training/working with trainers.
I also mentioned soldiers and athletes. I've worked with both, and there is some overlap there, but in both cases women seemed more likely to admit to an injury than men.
At a glance, it would appear that it is more physically demanding to become a sniper than it is to become a Ranger.
Thus, I suspect that very, very few individuals would be able to qualify, and I seriously doubt the Marines will drop those requirements in order to get less physically capable snipers that are out of action 6 times as much from injury- regardless of their courage or skill.
It just doesn't stand up to logic. There are many ways to serve the country, and the whole goal of the military is for it to use you in the way that you will most benefit it- not the way that will make you feel the best about it.
The following link is to an Army study, but it details load out by position for Infantry. It gives you an idea of what is carried in Afghanistan:
I don't think I ever went on a dismounted patrol with anything less then 90lbs and that was on a shorter ranged patrol (1 day). We once humped all our gear to a new OP 1 full days march away and had to set up a new COP, that was probably pushing 120-130lbs of gear a person and god help those poor buggers who got stuck carrying the 240s.
Ghazkuul wrote: I don't think I ever went on a dismounted patrol with anything less then 90lbs and that was on a shorter ranged patrol (1 day). We once humped all our gear to a new OP 1 full days march away and had to set up a new COP, that was probably pushing 120-130lbs of gear a person and god help those poor buggers who got stuck carrying the 240s.
This may be a really dumb question but why couldn't you transport that gear in a vehicle?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Mountainous terrain? No roads? Roads chock full of IEDs? Doesn't make much imagination, and I'm no soldier.
All of these, and COIN operations operate on the premise of Dismounted patrols and engaging the locals directly. It is kind of hard to start a dialogue with someone from the passenger seat of an MRAP.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Mountainous terrain? No roads? Roads chock full of IEDs? Doesn't take much imagination, and I'm no soldier.
Aircraft?
Fly in the gear so your soldiers aren't bogged down by a load of weight if they come under enemy fire whilst moving to their position.
Soldiers walk, gear gets driven/flown. You can still interact with locals and you're not getting dragged down by a load of kit that will just be a hindrance if you actually end up in a combat situation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Mountainous terrain? No roads? Roads chock full of IEDs? Doesn't take much imagination, and I'm no soldier.
Aircraft?
Fly in the gear so your soldiers aren't bogged down by a load of weight if they come under enemy fire whilst moving to their position.
Flying has its own hazards and again defeats the purpose of COIN operations. You can't engage in Key leader engagements if your troops are airborne.
Also you can't patrol from the air because if we could we wouldn't have an army anymore just an airforce.
Lastly, operations in deserts are extremely hard on aircraft and you don't waste them on useless maneuvers like dropping off gear because people were lazy
just saw your updated post, most of the gear you hump on a patrol is the stuff your going to need on a patrol, Extra ammunition, entrenching tool, body armor, sappi plates, food. For longer patrols that is viable but if you could have dropped them off at the area they needed to be in in the first place then why bother walking?
'Roads chocked full of IEDs' hints at a big part of the reason. Roads/known trails/natural lines of drift are things you want to avoid unless the mission dictates you travel them (which it may for a variety of reasons).
Additionally, in an Army (not mechanized) infantry company you have two organic vehicles, a hummer and a truck. The truck is used by the supply guys to move the heavy stuff (bring up water, ammo and so on) and the hummer is really the basis for the company CP, having the radios and C2 devices that bring situational awareness/intel/other data to the company and allow the company to send up reports/data (TIGR updates for example).
Guys can't ride vehicles they do not have. Many units draw M-ATVs or other MRAP type vehicles in theater, but as mentioned, those put a massive constraint on where you can operate as well as forcing you to incur a much larger logistics tail (and a larger perimeter to defend and so on) as you now need to worry about getting fuel and parts and the maintenance folks for your new trucks.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Mountainous terrain? No roads? Roads chock full of IEDs? Doesn't take much imagination, and I'm no soldier.
Aircraft?
Fly in the gear so your soldiers aren't bogged down by a load of weight if they come under enemy fire whilst moving to their position.
That's very expensive, relatively error prone and vulnerable to interference. That fact is with current technology there are just some situations where a bag strapped to a human body is the most efficient means of doing something.
Yeah, there are only so many blade hours you can count on, and ammo/water resupply to isolated COPs and Medevac are probably a BIT more important than lugging PFC Snuffy's ruck for him. Not to mention, Snuffy may well need the contents of that ruck at a point that the birds can't fly due to weather or maintenance downs.
Fair enough. I figured there would be reasons but was curious as to what they would be.
The desert wear and tear on aircraft plus the risk that somebody with a Stinger brings it down, losing you all your gear and the aircraft and crew seems like a big one.
You do bring up a good point though, do we NEED to have our guys patrolling as heavy as they do?
No great answer to that, it is (as they say) METT-TC* dependent.
We used to try to have an Objective Rally Point (ORP) where you could drop the rucks and move to the objective a lot lighter, but it increases need for security (you have to leave a couple guys to guard the ORP) and forces you to have to go back to the ORP (if not actually retracing your path at least going back to a known/maybe compromised position). And it only works for certain types of mission, and of course you still have to get your gak to the ORP by lugging it in on your back.
Some units for some missions may be able to have a cache site with water/ammo/medical supplies preset along a route (either infil or exfil) which may lighten your march loads, but again, it takes resources and planning to work, and it tends to be used VERY rarely by conventional forces for a variety of reasons.
We (and specifically I) used to be ruthless when it came to PCIs/PCCs to enforce load plan and make sure guys were not humping excess gak but did have all mission gear. Cutting ounces makes a difference.
*METT-TC mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available, civil considerations
I was with scout snipers in 29 palms for awhile. I don't know how much weight we were carrying but it was more than I carried before. And I was an 0331.
Then you get people with the identical 4 months, and 2 years of A schooling program. You replicate everything exactly a person going into the experiment set. That's what a proper model is, you reproduce all important factors. Besides that's just one solution. If externalizing the tests is a non-starter, a longer timeline could be adopted internally. If they USMC can do 500 people per year, in 30 they'll have done 15,000.
No matter if it's females in general, or the USMC specifically the principles remain the same: Rational decisions are made on concrete data. Decisions made without concerete data are arbitrary. Where my government makes arbitrary decisions, I want them erring away from using class distinctions as a sole standard.
Soooooo, train civilians to be Marines so you can test them according to Marine standards in a test that is designed to measure combat effectiveness in mixed gender Marine units vs all male Marine units?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
The point of this test isn't to have a "proper model", its to measure the combat effectiveness of mixed gender Marine units. Taking non Marines (of any gender) and putting them in as test subjects isn't just illogical, its bad science.
Reading through this report, seeing some things that don't add up, most particularly:
A significant number of untrained men are more accurate than trained women.
How the *hell* did that happen?
Until we can see their methodology (which I have not been able to find) I have to question this report, since it seems to fly in the face of other countries studies.
Fatigue is likely the main factor in that. Its one thing to shoot while rested and relaxed. It's a completely different story to ruck 10 miles with a 90lb pack, then shoot.
BaronIveagh wrote: Reading through this report, seeing some things that don't add up, most particularly:
A significant number of untrained men are more accurate than trained women.
How the *hell* did that happen?
Until we can see their methodology (which I have not been able to find) I have to question this report, since it seems to fly in the face of other countries studies.
The results of this study, and differences among similar studies conducted by other countries, are actually quite easy to explain.
American gun ownership is higher among males than females (3x as many men own guns as women). Younger US males are more likely to have firearms experience than women prior to military service (hunting, target shooting, etc.). Therefore they would be listed as "untrained" in that study - the summary operationalized this as "no formal training." So we're comparing an untrained but probably more experienced male sample against a trained but largely inexperienced female sample. No surprise that the guys could shoot better.
The Israelis found that women largely shoot better than men given equal training. Israeli teenagers don't typically touch firearms before the age of military service, making all subjects in that sample novices. In my own experience teaching men and women to shoot, women tend to actually listen to instruction whereas a lot of guys think that they already know what they're doing.
Furthermore, as someone with subject matter expertise in the Israel Defense Forces, I can say that in my unit, nearly all of our American immigrants and volunteers shot better than Israeli men and therefore were selected as calaim (sharpshooters), myself included. Europeans were not selected for this role. I'd been shooting since I was ~6 and during selection took the company record with a grouping of .3 cm at 25m using ironsights. The next top scores were all shot by Americans and the lone Russian. The rest of the calah positions were filled by the Israelis who could shoot straight (some could not, and some guys actually managed to miss the fething paper at 25 yards...these targets were printed on ~8x11 computer paper). Funny enough, nearly all of the Americans aced the fieldcraft, fitness, and marksmanship portions of the course, but failed the communications portions entirely because our Hebrew was generally atrocious (I couldn't even translate my score card) resulting in below average course scores.
So it's possible that, given equal levels of experience, women respond better to training. In fact, most instructors will support this with their own anecdotes. However, in the US we cannot assume that males and females will have equal prior firearms experience, and a lifetime of firearms experience may be superior to the standard of training provided by the military.
DarkLink wrote: Fatigue is likely the main factor in that. Its one thing to shoot while rested and relaxed. It's a completely different story to ruck 10 miles with a 90lb pack, then shoot.
You and nuggs have points, but until we see their methodology, we won't know.
The M2 being the exception for 'accuracy for crew weapons' though would call that into question, assuming the same methodology was used. Ma Duce weighs over 100 pounds with tripod.
The M2 also isn't shoulder fired. That actually backs up my theory, fatigue wouldn't have nearly the effect on a tripod based weapon as on a shoulder fired one.
DarkLink wrote: The M2 also isn't shoulder fired. That actually backs up my theory, fatigue wouldn't have nearly the effect on a tripod based weapon as on a shoulder fired one.
Depends what the other team weapons tested were (again, way too many unknowns here). M224 isn't shoulder fired either, for example, but I'll bet they tested it (and if they didn't, they should have).
Not really related to this story, but I wasn't sure if it is worth starting a new post over it:
But it appears that one of my Oklahoma congress critters is demanding that the Ranger school is handing over the training records of the two women that completed the program to make sure that they really deserved to graduate.
I'm sure he never bothered to check on a single guy that graduated.
d-usa wrote: Not really related to this story, but I wasn't sure if it is worth starting a new post over it:
But it appears that one of my Oklahoma congress critters is demanding that the Ranger school is handing over the training records of the two women that completed the program to make sure that they really deserved to graduate.
I'm sure he never bothered to check on a single guy that graduated.
I do want to point out that since standards for women are lower in military over there and many women (apparently) fail to do the male standards often he has a reason to be suspicious. If they turn out they passed normally like the males do then im sure he will say "nice work" and move on.
It's like hearing someone read out there rules for an army in a wargame and one sticks out as unusual compared to others so you say "hey can read that one, sounds different to the usual" and most people don't get upset because the person didn't ask to read every rule of your army too. It's just normal to want to verify anomalies.
In that context it'd be normal for her boss in whichever company she is going to after Ranger school to say "Wait what really? Can I see her results?".
d-usa is (if I understand correctly) talking about a member of his state's congress asking for results from someone in training for the federal army to "verify" it...for whatever ridiculous purpose that dropkick of a congressman has. Which doesn't affect him or the laws he passes, because Oklahoma doesn't control the US army (thank god), their training standards or anything related to this lass passing Ranger school.
Do you see the difference between that and your example with the army book?
d-usa wrote: Not really related to this story, but I wasn't sure if it is worth starting a new post over it:
But it appears that one of my Oklahoma congress critters is demanding that the Ranger school is handing over the training records of the two women that completed the program to make sure that they really deserved to graduate.
I'm sure he never bothered to check on a single guy that graduated.
I've heard several rumors, a couple from very credible people who would have access to how they did. Some, not so much...
The one I believe the most is they were allowed to continue until they quit or finally made it once they passed the Darby phase. Hence the higher than normal amount of allowed overall recycles (and recycles per phase). You won't find a lot of male students offered 2-3 shots at Dahlonega after taking 2-3 to make it through Benning.
Having said that, I've also heard (and believe) the ladies did very well on peer evals. That says a lot. The RIs can (and will) always find a way to fail you on a patrol, but if you are not pulling your weight your peer evals will show it regardless.
We'll see. I actually hope they DO release their records by phase to include their spot reports, peer evals and patrol evals to lay the controversy to rest.
motyak wrote: In that context it'd be normal for her boss in whichever company she is going to after Ranger school to say "Wait what really? Can I see her results?".
d-usa is (if I understand correctly) talking about a member of his state's congress asking for results from someone in training for the federal army to "verify" it...for whatever ridiculous purpose that dropkick of a congressman has. Which doesn't affect him or the laws he passes, because Oklahoma doesn't control the US army (thank god), their training standards or anything related to this lass passing Ranger school.
Do you see the difference between that and your example with the army book?
True, but if it is something he is interested in is it really worth vilifying him for asking to see the results?
I mean these 2 women could have failed (hypothetically) and him revealing this could raise questions about how much the military might lie to paint themselves better etc.
I don't see what is so wrong about asking to see the results. If the guys in charge say " none of your "business" then they can do that. Personally I would think that their test would be shown to say that it can be done and then the skeptics would have to back down a bit.
BaronIveagh wrote: Reading through this report, seeing some things that don't add up, most particularly:
A significant number of untrained men are more accurate than trained women.
How the *hell* did that happen?
Until we can see their methodology (which I have not been able to find) I have to question this report, since it seems to fly in the face of other countries studies.
None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion). All of the non-Infantry Marines involved (male and female) would have gone through MCT (Marine Combat Training), which is basically a shorter version of ITB for non-Infantry Marines. Calling them "untrained" isn't really accurate. They had just had a shorter period of instruction prior to being involved in the study. ITB is a 59 day course and MCT is a 29 day course. Calling them untrained makes it sound like they hadn't had any infantry-type training at all, which isn't the case.
Depending on MOS, Marines who complete ITB also get more advanced, MOS-specific training with crew-served weapons like mortars and machine guns, and LAVs for Marines that are in those respective pipelines. That could also explain the different results with the .50 cal. Marines in the machine gunner pipeline would likely get more training on the M2 going through ITB than non-infantry Marines who had only done MCT.
None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).
Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.
On the flip side, I find it improbably that the Corps is so opposed to having to dig his and hers latrines to go this far.
(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)
None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).
Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.
(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)
It was pretty clear in the Marine Corps Times article here. The integrated task force was made up of volunteers.
The Marines' Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force involved about 400 Marine volunteers, roughly 25 percent of whom were women. Over the course of nine months, teams that simulated integrated rifle, weapons, mechanized and artillery units trained to infantry standards and then executed a repetitive series of skills assessments under human testing conditions.
While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs. One task force unit, a provisional rifle platoon, attempted to mitigate this problem by comparing the performance of male and female troops who received no formal infantry training.
In this case, "no formal infantry training" would mean "didn't go to ITB so they don't possess an 03XX MOS." All of those Marines would have still attended MCT.
The weapons that were tested are all the weapons that are normally used by infantry units and weapons that Marines are trained on at ITB. As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.
None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).
Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.
On the flip side, I find it improbably that the Corps is so opposed to having to dig his and hers latrines to go this far.
(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)
While the formal writeup might not have been released, it's not like they completely rewrote the training schedule, and at the beginning of the process they announced information about how the females were selected. So most infantry Marines can tell you what the training was like, what weapons were used, etc, and if you do a bit of digging you can find some of the details about how females were selected. I don't recall exactly off the top of my head, but I believe they offered females that performed well at recruit training the opportunity to volunteer, with the understanding that after graduation they would return to their previously assigned MOS training. Don't quote me on that, though.
Hordini wrote: As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.
All branches were ordered to conduct this study (or broadly similar ones with the goal of identifying the role women would play in their respective branches and what possible outcomes would be) with the deadline coming up rather soon. So far, the Marine one is the only one that they publicly released the results.
I really want to see their methodology. I'm reading some conflicting things about it. Particularly volunteers qualifications were held to two different standards of fitness, one of men, and one for women. The marines did not train together in integrated units, the squads were only integrated for 24-36 hours.
Both of those could cause the result to be skewed.
So, we'll see what the full report says, and then pass judgement.
I distinctly remember during Team week having to go down to the Ranges to mark Targets for the requals.
Team week in Marine Boot Camp is the week directly following Range week, Its basically a week long feth feth game and you get sent out in small groups to parts of Parris Island (no idea about San Diego).
Anyone who failed to Qualify as a Marksmen (Lowest passing grade) had to spend the entire week Requalling on the Range with the understanding that regardless of how well they do on requal they will be a pizza box (Marskmen badge looks like a pizza box) until they reshoot at their next unit during the next fiscal year.
Anyway back to the story. At Requals the number of male Marines compared to female marines was probably a 1:2 ratio, with females outnumbering the males rather heavily, which is a big surprise because Parris Island has 4 Recruit Training Battalions, 3 Male (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and 1 female (4th). a I didn't really understand this until I went to my Unit and did a bunch of CMP ranges and realized that a lot of the female marines had a border line fear of recoil and hot brass. these two things caused them to jerk the shots a lot. This is all personal experience so take it with a grain of salt.
As far as why females did really well with the Ma deuce? Because its the best machine gun in the history of the military, and its a tripod mounted beast that has traverse nobs instead of free floating, which means its more of a math problem then anything else.
Hordini wrote: As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.
All branches were ordered to conduct this study (or broadly similar ones with the goal of identifying the role women would play in their respective branches and what possible outcomes would be) with the deadline coming up rather soon. So far, the Marine one is the only one that they publicly released the results.
I really want to see their methodology. I'm reading some conflicting things about it. Particularly volunteers qualifications were held to two different standards of fitness, one of men, and one for women. The marines did not train together in integrated units, the squads were only integrated for 24-36 hours.
Both of those could cause the result to be skewed.
So, we'll see what the full report says, and then pass judgement.
That is actually completely false, the unit trained together for months before the tests started.
As I said, conflicting information, so I'm holding off judgment until I see the actual study in it's number filled glory. Post makes it sound like they were segregated until testing commenced in their article on the SECNAV's criticism of it.
As I said, conflicting information, so I'm holding off judgment until I see the actual study in it's number filled glory. Post makes it sound like they were segregated until testing commenced in their article on the SECNAV's criticism of it.
Lance Cpl. Callahan Brown kept losing her tentmates.
The 20-year-old Marine had spent months in co-ed training at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, before moving west to Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, for a series of combat assessments in grimy field conditions — the closest any female Marine has been permitted to get to infantry life and training.
I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?
I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?
I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.
Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:
"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."
This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.
I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?
I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.
Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:
"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."
This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.
So both the men and women aren't professional enough. Which is hilarious as for all the resistance there was about allowing homosexuals into the forces you never heard of homosexual soldiers reducing the effectiveness of their units.
Seems it's the heterosexuals who can't keep their emotions/sexual organs in check
I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?
I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.
Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:
"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."
This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.
So both the men and women aren't professional enough. Which is hilarious as for all the resistance there was about allowing homosexuals into the forces you never heard of homosexual soldiers reducing the effectiveness of their units.
Seems it's the heterosexuals who can't keep their emotions/sexual organs in check
Actually I was only opposed to repealing Dont Ask Don't tell because it was one of my favorite things to make jokes about
Random marine does something feminine, "Look Marine, I am not going to ask, and I sure as Feth don't want you to tell me, but could you stop being so fething obvious?"
In reality the Military didn't give a flying feth about gays in the military, there was a few, maybe one in twenty or even higher that was openly opposed to it. But the VAST majority of marines don't care who the feth is next to them so long as they are pulling their weight and not falling asleep on post.
So both the men and women aren't professional enough. .
Not exactly. They found it happens even if they have no idea who the other person is. Men and women just have some ground in kneejerk responses that are hard to overcome. Guys tend to try and help a woman regardless of if they're in a relationship or not, etc.
General Dunford has officially asked SecNav to block females from specific Combat arms MOS's and Recon units.
However, being Marines and prepared for most contingencies it appears that the USMC is going to increase the bare minimums for joining combat arms, in what appears to be a way to eliminate the ability of most females from even qualifying for Combat Arms.
I remember not to long ago I said that if the USMC was forced to allow females into Infantry they would find a way around it and here is the first example of the USMC dealing with a SecNav more concerned with being a SJW then running the worlds largest Navy/Marine Corps.
So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.
So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner. If they try and play glass ceiling games and get caught, they'll have SecDef all over their ass in a heartbeat.
BaronIveagh wrote: So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.
So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner.
Well the recommendation hasn't been shot down out of hand yet by the SecNav, but it most likely will be because even before the START of the experiment He went on record saying he wouldn't allow woman to be banned from Infantry in the USMC. Which is funny because he accused the Marines of going into the experiment with their minds already made up...something something kettle black?
But even if the SecNav does shoot it down, technically Dunford now outranks him because he just became CJCS and the #1 military adviser to the president. Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.
BaronIveagh wrote: So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.
So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner. If they try and play glass ceiling games and get caught, they'll have SecDef all over their ass in a heartbeat.
I think they're banking on a Republican win in 2016.
Ghazkuul wrote: Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.
You do realize that getting women out of rear echelon is the whole point of this, and the Marines being that obvious about it would get a real shitstorm going.
Ghazkuul wrote: Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.
You do realize that getting women out of rear echelon is the whole point of this, and the Marines being that obvious about it would get a real shitstorm going.
I think they're banking on a Republican win in 2016.
I think so too. And unless the Republicans can get rid of Trump, I think they're going to see their hopes dashed. But, that's entirely OT.
your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth. The only thing Marines care about is Mission Accomplishment. If having woman in a combat unit would help that they will gladly incorporate them. But since it appears to be the opposite they will fight tooth and nail to keep them out. And even if the POTUS forces them to accept it, they will find a loop hole. Marines are the United States ELITE light infantry, they care about getting the job done and not much else. So beyond that SecNav can do whatever he wants.
your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth.
Neither did Dugout Doug... until he was former General Douglas MacArthur.
You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.
your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth.
Neither did Dugout Doug... until he was former General Douglas MacArthur.
You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.
General MacArthur was replaced, not because he angered the president, which he did in spades. But because he showed potential for disobeying President Truman and mobilizing the Taiwanese Chinese to invade Mainland China. He was also replaced because he was so comprehensibly wrong on several occasions such as NK's intent before the war, the appalling training standards he allowed in Japan after WWII that led to high casualties in Korean. The fact that he was frequently given solid intelligence reporting large formations of Chinese moving into North Korea and instead of preparing for this he refused to believe them.
Also, I never said the Marines wouldn't be smart about it, they will use the females the best way they can be utilized. the USMC is to small to squander what little resources it has. So if the Politically Correct Machine forces the Corps to have females in Infantry and other combat MOS's then they will make use of those troops. IF they aren't as effective as Men then the corps will find a way to utilize them that doesn't jeopardize the mission.
Ghazkuul wrote: General MacArthur was replaced, not because he angered the president, which he did in spades. But because he showed potential for disobeying President Truman and mobilizing the Taiwanese Chinese to invade Mainland China.
And, that different from what I just said... how? And he didn't just have the potential to disobey, he did. As his own men pointed out to him, at the time.
Ghazkuul wrote: I never said the Marines wouldn't be smart about it,
I didn't say they wouldn't either. I said that your suggestion on how they would do it was not a good idea, and they would need a better one than that, as it had a good chance of backfiring.
BaronIveagh wrote: You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.
I agree in theory, but you can only have a revolving door going so long before people start to take notice.
I have no more insight into the Marines' plan with this than the next guy, but my theory is that they're banking everything on digging in their heels long enough to get someone in office who cares more about capability and readiness (the needs of the service, one might say) than the wants of the individual. If they can stall out for a couple years, they might head this off at the pass.
They've got some decent facts backing them up, to my mind. A woman's yet to make it through IOC. Less than half of women are able to hit the three pull-up minimum standard three years after the Marines said it would be mandatory for everybody. And now, this study.
The USMC also is publishing gender neutral standards for all combat arms MOSs which will make it harder for males to get certain MOS and very difficult for females. Seems they are still asking for waivers to keep some MOS male only, and the new standards will be in place if that fails.
On the up side, the improvement in performance in tests involving both "cognitive and physical activities" by mixed groups over single gender sounds good for combat engineers.
I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..
Long ago, Sun Tzu was challenged by King Helü of Wu to prove his theories of warfare. The king claimed that it should be easy, based on Sun Tzu's principals, to turn any rabble into good soldiers, and so commanded that Sun Tzu turn the king's mistresses into a competent military unit. Despite angering the king by executing one of the mistresses for failure to follow orders, he went one better and made them the finest unit in the armies of Wu. Or, so it's said, anyway.
On the up side, the improvement in performance in tests involving both "cognitive and physical activities" by mixed groups over single gender sounds good for combat engineers.
I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..
Long ago, Sun Tzu was challenged by King Helü of Wu to prove his theories of warfare. The king claimed that it should be easy, based on Sun Tzu's principals, to turn any rabble into good soldiers, and so commanded that Sun Tzu turn the king's mistresses into a competent military unit. Despite angering the king by executing one of the mistresses for failure to follow orders, he went one better and made them the finest unit in the armies of Wu. Or, so it's said, anyway.
which is why the Zhou dynasty was replaced by the Qin dynasty
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..
Part of the reason is, female performance in combat up until now has in many cases not always included many tasks that infantrymen have to be able to do, such as long movements under load. Getting into a firefight while mounted and performing well is great, and no one is taking anything away from that, but it's not the same thing as being able to do long movements under under heavy load, keep from getting hurt, and be ready to fight when you get to where you are going (or en route).
There are a lot of different ways to be "in combat." Pilots can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Truck drivers can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Any combat support or combat service support personnel could end up in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. While there will be some skill overlap in all of those situations (such as being able to shoot, for example), just saying that women have been in combat and performed well doesn't mean that women are generally going to perform well in the infantry.
I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the toll that sustained movements under load take, and how much easier it is for women to get injured while doing it.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..
Part of the reason is, female performance in combat up until now has in many cases not always included many tasks that infantrymen have to be able to do, such as long movements under load. Getting into a firefight while mounted and performing well is great, and no one is taking anything away from that, but it's not the same thing as being able to do long movements under under heavy load, keep from getting hurt, and be ready to fight when you get to where you are going (or en route).
There are a lot of different ways to be "in combat." Pilots can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Truck drivers can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Any combat support or combat service support personnel could end up in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. While there will be some skill overlap in all of those situations (such as being able to shoot, for example), just saying that women have been in combat and performed well doesn't mean that women are generally going to perform well in the infantry.
I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the toll that sustained movements under load take, and how much easier it is for women to get injured while doing it.
To underscore your remarks, from the article:
"While highlighting the achievements of many outstanding female Marines, the report finds that overall elite female troops do not reach the same physical standards as their male counterparts. Smith notes that more than 400 women have received Combat Action Ribbons for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“There is no more compelling evidence that our female Marines have served very capably and courageously in combat and have distinguished themselves in non-linear, extremely complex operating environments,” the report states. “However, none of those rewards reflected a female Marine having to “locate, close with and destroy the enemy” in deliberate offensive combat operations. Rather, these actions were all in response to enemy action in the form of IED strikes, enemy attacks on convoys or bases or attacks on female Marines serving in the Lioness Program or on Female Engagement Teams.”
The report does note that female service members have better overall disciplinary records than men, and highlights that “in a decision-making study that we ran in which all male and integrated groups attempted to solve challenging field problems [that involved] varying levels of both physical and cognitive difficulty… the female integrated teams (with one female and three or four males) performed as well or better than the all-male teams.”
But “there were numerous indications of lower performance levels from combat arms females or female-integrated groups,” the report states.
The Marines report echoes the findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
“Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy,” that report stated. “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”
However, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told NPR that studies showing women cannot keep up with men in certain areas could be flawed.
“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this,” he said. “When you start out with that mindset you're almost presupposing the outcome.”
One former U.S. Marine told FoxNews.com on condition of anonymity that full integration in all units could hurt morale if it is perceived as being done for political correctness and not merit.
“The Marines are being asked to treat female soldiers as absolute equals – in possibly life-threatening situations – even when every other measure has long ago proven that such physical equality between males and females does not exist,” he said.
Israel, which has long integrated women into its military, has reached similar conclusions regarding the most elite units, according to Lt. Col. Yuval Heled, the Israel Defence Force’s top military physiologist.
“Women in Israel and the U.S. do very good field operations,” Heled said. “But I would say that in the front line, with the potential of engaging in close combat, I would still recommend leaving things as they are.”
Ghazkuul wrote:
which is why the Zhou dynasty was replaced by the Qin dynasty
If I recall, in Records of the Grand Historian, the fall of Wu was directly attributed to the abandonment of Sun Tzu's principals in strategy. So.... no.
Relapse wrote:
“Women in Israel and the U.S. do very good field operations,” Heled said. “But I would say that in the front line, with the potential of engaging in close combat, I would still recommend leaving things as they are.”
I suppose my problem with this whole thing is that I've heard many of these arguments before. That they can't do it. They don't have enough stamina. Morale would suffer. That the men would not put up with it, that all they are good for is truck drivers, potato peelers, camp guards and ditch diggers.
Then, one snowy Saturday in the Ardennes, it didn't matter how black they were.
CptJake wrote: Black troops never had the disparity in upper body strength nor the predisposition to musculature skeletal injuries. It is a gakky comparison.
Agreed. I didn't understand the logic of equating a Black man to a woman in a situation where physical strength could mean the difference between life and death.
Israel has had decades of experience fielding women in combat situations and they wouldn't put them in a situation where strength is a factor. It's silly to ignore the findings and practices of a country whose literal existence hinges on the strength of it's military and how well it functions.
djphranq wrote: By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.
I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).
Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.
My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.
Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.
Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Considering that the women that went to Ranger school and Marine IOC both suffered similar disproportionately high injury rates, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that it's still an issue. You could make the argument that we should drop a few more male Marines as well. Of course that's ignoring half the rationale behind why they're considering allowing women in or not (that not enough women make it through while remaining functional and meeting the standards to justify sending women at all).
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Also, you would be absolutely amazed how much of the technology around you came directly from "wasteful" government spending. Today's fighter jet is tomorrow's airliner. Today's missile guidance system is tomorrow's rocket to the moon. Today's gas mask is tomorrow's tissue paper (true story).
Ghazkuul wrote: So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
This is an excellent point
Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.
Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?
No they don't. They do waste money on stupid crap because of a Zero Budget system which favors government contracts more then the military.
Anyway, to the point. Training females for infantry would cost a significant initial investment, just for the sake of making most infantry training areas female friendly. Beyond that, the fact that a female marine is 6 times more likely to be injured while attempting to join the infantry means that the initial investment in training is wasted as well. You can argue that this statistic doesn't accurately represent the injury Rate of females who are at a higher level of physical fitness, but I would argue back that you don't know that only females in the upper echelons of physical fitness would attempt to join the infantry. Regardless, it cost about 46,000 to train a Basic Marine back in 07 and thats before you get them to an MOS school which usually costs significantly more due to the specialization required. So on average your looking at each New Marine costing anywhere between 100-200k. Thats just a rough estimate because when you get into specifics, certain MOS's cost significantly more such as my MOS of 2621; My clearance alone cost around 15,000.
And the USMC has the smallest budget of any service. (with the notable exception of the coast guard, but since they fall under Homeland security....meh.) 40.6 billion or roughly 4% of the US Defense budget goes to the Marine Corps. With such a small budget and with such a high deployment tempo, the resources required to train a handful of females for the sake of equality makes zero sense.
Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?
No they don't.
Here is a portion of Donald Rumsfeld's speech (sorry i can't find the full thing, apart from some silly 9/11 conspiracy video). You might not remember this as it was announced on September 10th 2001, and was later overshadowed by "other news":
If we're talking money that is unaccounted for, it's many trillions. How much of that was actually wasted, is anyones guess, since it's unaccounted for. They have also allegedly misplaced 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.
but I would argue back that you don't know that only females in the upper echelons of physical fitness would attempt to join the infantry.
Here in the UK you need to be able to meet certain fitness requirements before you can even sign up for the infantry, which is made clear. For example the parachute regent expects a minimum of 50 press ups-in 2 minutes, and 7 upper body pull ups. I think you also need to weigh at least 60kg. I would hope most women would know before hand whether they can do 50 press ups in 2 mins, and weigh over 60kg, but for the few who don't, I don't see why it would cost upteen millions to test them along side male candidates.
Smacks wrote: it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.
Wrong. Go back and look at all the studies I posted links to. Many were of female athletes. The difference in types, severity and occurrence rates have to do with (here is the major surprise) women being built differently.
Now hold on! I wasn't really asserting anything, for me to be wrong about. All I said was that Ghaz's assertion that women are 6x more likely to be injured (which he is throwing about like a fact) has not been established to my satisfaction (or at all, so far as I can see). I have looked through the study, and I didn't see anything specific that supports this, other than a misunderstanding of how averages work.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that women might be more accident prone regardless of fitness. If that is the case then I would happy to agree he is right (or that I am wrong, if you prefer to see it that way). But please could you quote where you are getting this from? Rather than just having to take your word for it.
It was stated in the report that they used above average females for this and average males and the results were still heavily tilted towards the males scoring far better.
I think we would have a lot less issues if we had a simple standard PT scoring system for combat jobs. The UK has the right idea, test before you go. Whats funny about their standard is the US army female standards, the maximum 100 points for female pushups in the 22-26 age range(its lower for 17-21 actually) is 46. The minimum for guys of the same age is 40. I know girls who can beat this, my friend did from a cold start after drinking a lot of beer at a beer festival this past weekend, think she got in the mid 60s.I don't think she could pull off a 25 mile, 8 hour ruck march in full gear with weapon and a light 60 pound ruck though. She is a freak of nature(hot too) but her build and lifestyle is not the most common and she would be in the one in several hundred women who could at least give it a go.
This whole discussion isn't about equal rights. What we are dealing with is politicians wanting to make a name for themselves as being "civil rights" leaders who has an absolute total disregard for the safety and welfare of the military. They do not care how many people get hurt or get killed by this. They don't care that limited slots in infantry units where they need big guys to hump around 240Bs, missile launchers plus ammo up and down mountains and instead they will be replacing some of those slots with females who will have a very hard time doing it raising the hardship on everyone else. In light infantry, the risk of injury is even greater since they have to weigh down light weight paratroopers with extra gear, that includes guys too, and that dramatically increases the chances of injury. I am aware that any female that does this is not going to be a greyhound and will be a ball of muscle(they would have to be) but again, how many millions of dollars and permanent injuries, not to mention reduced effectiveness is it worth. On the bright side, I don't see lines of women around the block clamoring to get into Infantry school either. The fact they haven't passed infantry officers course and they had to bend the rules to get two through ranger school, plus this long term study pretty much puts the writing on the wall. Nothing against them but they don't belong in combat arms.
Now hold on! I wasn't really asserting anything, for me to be wrong about. All I said was that Ghaz's assertion that women are 6x more likely to be injured (which he is throwing about like a fact) has not been established to my satisfaction (or at all, so far as I can see). I have looked through the study, and I didn't see anything specific that supports this, other than a misunderstanding of how averages work.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that women might be more accident prone regardless of fitness. If that is the case then I would happy to agree he is right (or that I am wrong, if you prefer to see it that way). But please could you quote where you are getting this from? Rather than just having to take your word for it.
I posted links to several studies in this topic. I'm not going to go back and find them again because I've already done so and read them.
As for 'accident prone', that is not what any of us are saying. Big differences between accidents and injuries. Though you can obviously be injured as the result of an accident, it is not an accident when your body just can't handle bearing heavy loads across long distances/rough terrain.
Col. Dash wrote: They do not care how many people get hurt or get killed by this.
Well first you would need to establish that people really would get hurt by this. If a man is unfit, that might also result in people getting hurt, so why discriminate?
They don't care that limited slots in infantry units where they need big guys to hump around 240Bs, missile launchers plus ammo up and down mountains and instead they will be replacing some of those slots with females who will have a very hard time doing it raising the hardship on everyone else.
I agree that would be bad, but there might also be women who are good at the job, able to do it, and deserve to be there as much as a man. Not all women are 80 pound weaklings, to suggest they are is kind of sexist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I posted links to several studies in this topic. I'm not going to go back and find them again because I've already done so and read them.
Well I read through, and I can't find what you are talking about. If you aren't willing to back up what you are saying, then excuse me if I don't put too much faith in it.
As for 'accident prone', that is not what any of us are saying. Big differences between accidents and injuries. Though you can obviously be injured as the result of an accident, it is not an accident when your body just can't handle bearing heavy loads across long distances/rough terrain.
A poor choice of words on my part. I understand what you are suggesting though. I would also agree that women have wider hips (again on average) which might be an issue, or for some it might not. Not all women are (surprise surprise) built the same.
the authors emphasize that, anatomically and physiologically, women are not the same as men; lower extremity biomechanical dif- ferences between men and women may account for gender differences in training injury rates. Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion, and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. the diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes.
Ninety-nine female recruits, 36 male recruits, and 55 controls participated. Although 31% of the controls reported regular preinduction sports participation, less than 25% of both male and female recruits did. Stress fractures incidence was 0% among males and controls but 12% among female recruits (P = 0.03). The mean body mass index of female recruits with stress fractures was 19.2 +/- 2.6 versus 22.5 +/- 3.3 kg x m of female recruits without stress fractures (P = 0.02, odds ratio = 1.397, 95% confidence interval = 1.065-1.833). No statistically significant difference was found between female and male military trainees in the incidence of other overuse injuries, but there was a statistical trend (P = 0.07) for more back pain among females
The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation.
Results: Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization. Women had significantly more stress fractures and stress reactions than men. The median number of days excused from physical activities for women's injuries was significantly higher than that from men's injuries. Pretraining conditioning, measured by performance on a 2-mile (3.2-km) run, accounted for approximately half the difference in rates of injuries between men and women; differences in height among men and women did not account for differences in injury rates.
Design: Ten mixed gender batteries, including 375 male recruits and 138 female recruits, carried out basic training in the Israeli anti-aircraft corps between November 1999 and January 2003. Each battery was monitored prospectively for 10 weeks of a basic training course. During that time, recruits who were suspected of having an overuse injury went through a protocol that included an orthopedic specialist physical examination followed by a radionuclide technetium bone scan, which was assessed by consultant nuclear medicine experts. The assessment included the anatomic site and the severity of the fractures, labeled as either high severity or low severity. Results: Stress fractures were significantly more common among female recruits than among male recruits. A total of 42 male (11.2%) and 33 female (23.91%) recruits had positive bone scans for stress fractures (female:male relative ratio, 2.13;p
ABSTRACT The incidence of recruit injuries during basic training in the Irish Army is, to date undocumented. In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of 415 recruits are examined. The lower limb predominated as the anatomical site of the majority of injuries. The overall incidence of male 'first time' injuries was 56.96 per 1000 man-week training. The corresponding female figure was 99.26. Female recruits lost an average of 8.2 days per injury, while the male figure was 5.69 days. The injured female recruit was also more likely to sustain a further injury than her male colleague. Risk factors and possible prevention strategies are discussed.
After BT, gender differences narrowed by approximately 4% in all tests except upper body strength. Although fitness improvement after BT was marginally higher in females than males, resulting in a slight narrowing of the gender differences, a significant gender gap in physical fitness still exists after BT.
Many civilian fitness activities (e.g., walking and jogging) have corollaries in military physical training (e.g., marching and running). The incidence of injury and related intrinsic risk factors for these activities have been more thoroughly studied in military populations than in civilians. Because physical fitness is required for military readiness, recruits undergo a vigorous basic training (BT) course, and substantial research has been devoted to methods of enhancing fitness and understanding the causes of training-related injuries. Studies from the U.S. Army 8-week BT have documented cumulative injury rates from 42% to 67% among women during the course of training (19,20,30). Of women in the U.S. Air Force, 33% incurred an injury during the 6-week BT (20). Similarly, 22% of women in the U.S. Navy sustained an injury during the 9-week BT, and 49% of women in the U.S. Marine Corps were injured during the 11-week BT (20). The range of injury incidence (22%-67%) among women in the different services and over time might be explained by differences in the duration and intensity of BT.
Again, no one is making this stuff up. It is an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And even a modest amount of 'google-ing' is going to find more, though some of the above and more of what google returns will have the full articles behind a pay wall (and I'm not going to cut an paste full articles from behind pay walls for anyone)
You really shouldn't have gone to so much trouble, especially when most of these quotes can be ruled out by the words "on average", women not being as strong on average has already been established. Talking specifically about the top 10th percentile of women that overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men in the tests. I do not see how can you draw any conclusions about their rate of injury from the things you have quoted. On the contrary you quoted this:
"The mean body mass index of female recruits with stress fractures was 19.2 +/- 2.6 versus 22.5 +/- 3.3 kg x m of female recruits without stress fractures"
Which seems to corroborate the idea that stress fractures are related to size and strength, not gender.
A female IDF Company Commander in Carcal (the mixed gender unit) received a citation recently for engaging 23 terrorists attempting to infiltrate from Egypt. Another source stated that they killed 6 and forced the rest to flee. She apparently emptied all of her magazines while administering medical aid, so there's that.
Now that said, Carcal is a MOUNTED unit. Usually AFAIK they aren't even wearing body armor, so we're talking maybe 30 lb fighting loads, 40 with armor. That's a far cry from the 80-120 lb loads Combat Infantry guys are expected to carry, and a far cry from the 40-50% bodyweight load I carried in the IDF. Women do a fine job at the combat aspect (breaking things and killing people), but the physical discrepancies can't be ignored.
CptJake wrote: Yet again, I have to assume your are willfully obtuse.
It's called critical thinking. I am willfully obtuse of statements which aren't directly supported by any evidence.
I agree some women are more prone to injuries than some men. I agree women as a group are more prone to injuries on average, then men are as a group on average.
But you seem to be asserting that all women are more prone to injuries than all men. That's quite a grand claim.
Read the studies, not just what I quoted.
Ergh! That will take ages, and will just be a waste of my time if they don't contain anything that supports your argument. If they do, I feel you would have posted it already? Why should I have to prove your points, for you? I'll think about it, and maybe we can argue more next week.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have made a rough graph based on the overlap that was described from some of the physical tests, to try and illustrate my "question".
We have two bell curves, one for women, one form men. The purple areas are where they overlap. Now, the graph shows clearly what everyone expected, which is that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women, no contest. And I don't think anyone would question that a man at point A would be stronger, and less prone to injury than a women at point D. In fact I would even be happy to agree that a man at point A would be stronger and less injury prone than all women.
My question though, is what about about a man at point C? He is behind many woman in terms of fitness and endurance etc... You could say he is stronger and less injury prone than a woman at point D, but what about a woman at point B? Can you really show that one of the weakest most unfit men, is still 6x less injury prone than one of the strongest women? That's what is bothering me.
Now if someone could show that, then I think I would be won over, and agree that women shouldn't do the job.
I also wouldn't have a problem if the army said point A is the minimum. Which would rule out all women and most men (including the man at point C).
I think what I do have a problem with is people saying "that man at at point C, he's okay, he can join the army" even though he's quite a low percentile. While the same people say: "that woman at point B, she'll get people killed because she's not as good as a man".
CptJake wrote: Yet again, I have to assume your are willfully obtuse.
It's called critical thinking. I am willfully obtuse of statements which aren't directly supported by any evidence.
I agree some women are more prone to injuries than some men.
I agree women as a group are more prone to injuries on average, then men are as a group on average.
But you seem to be asserting that all women are more prone to injuries than all men. That's quite a grand claim.
Read the studies, not just what I quoted.
Ergh! That will take ages, and will just be a waste of my time if they don't contain anything that supports your argument. If they do, I feel you would have posted it already? Why should I have to prove your points, for you? I'll think about it, and maybe we can argue more next week.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have made a rough graph based on the overlap that was described from some of the physical tests, to try and illustrate my "question".
We have two bell curves, one for women, one form men. The purple areas are where they overlap. Now, the graph shows clearly what everyone expected, which is that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women, no contest. And I don't think anyone would question that a man at point A would be stronger, and less prone to injury than a women at point D. In fact I would even be happy to agree that a man at point A would be stronger and less injury prone than all women.
My question though, is what about about a man at point C? He is behind many woman in terms of fitness and endurance etc... You could say he is stronger and less injury prone than a woman at point D, but what about a woman at point B? Can you really show that one of the weakest most unfit men, is still 6x less injury prone than one of the strongest women? That's what is bothering me.
Now if someone could show that, then I think I would be won over, and agree that women shouldn't do the job.
I also wouldn't have a problem if the army said point A is the minimum. Which would rule out all women and most men (including the man at point C).
I think what I do have a problem with is people saying "that man at at point C, he's okay, he can join the army" even though he's quite a low percentile. While the same people say: "that woman at point B, she'll get people killed because she's not as good as a man".
I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.
If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.
You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.
Ghazkuul wrote: I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.
Well that's mature. It's nothing to do with "warm happy feelings". It's about cold hard facts. If you can't show why person B is worse than person C with facts (rather than implied generalizations and stereotypes), then the facts don't support your argument. That's all there is too it.
If you can present facts that do, then I'd be more than happy to admit you are right and agree with you on this. But you have not done that, instead you offer insults. You have taken one thing that is a fact (women suffer more injuries on average as a group), and you skewed it into something else (all women are more prone to injury than all men). This is a straight up fallacy of composition. Some men are better than some women, absolutely does not prove all men are better than all women. In fact the test results explicitly said that there is an overlap, which means some men (literally half) performed worse than at least one woman.
Now if injuries really are an exception to that, then fair enough, but you have not shown that yet.
Ghazkuul wrote: If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.
Only if the units contain AVERAGE women, which is not what is being suggested. You are creating a strawman where the army is forced to let in 80lbs girls who can't do the job, which I agree is wrong. But you are ignoring that there are ABOVE AVERAGE women, who performed similarly to some men in the physical tests.
Ghazkuul wrote: You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.
The overlap between the top 10% of women and the bottom 50% of men is not "mythological" it was explicitly spelled out in the test results, that is a fact. Whether or not that overlap also applies to injuries is still unknown, since we were only given the averages and not a break down of how the percentiles overlapped. So what you say is false. "So far" the facts do not support your argument. They don't refute it either. They just aren't there.
Ghazkuul wrote: I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.
Well that's mature. It's nothing to do with "warm happy feelings". It's about cold hard facts. If you can't show why person B is worse than person C with facts (rather than implied generalizations and stereotypes), then the facts don't support your argument. That's all there is too it.
If you can present facts that do, then I'd be more than happy to admit you are right and agree with you on this. But you have not done that, instead you offer insults. You have taken one thing that is a fact (women suffer more injuries on average as a group), and you skewed it into something else (all women are more prone to injury than all men). This is a straight up fallacy of composition. Some men are better than some women, absolutely does not prove all men are better than all women. In fact the test results explicitly said that there is an overlap, which means some men (literally half) performed worse than at least one woman.
Now if injuries really are an exception to that, then fair enough, but you have not shown that yet.
Ghazkuul wrote: If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.
Only if the units contain AVERAGE women, which is not what is being suggested. You are creating a strawman where the army is forced to let in 80lbs girls who can't do the job, which I agree is wrong. But you are ignoring that there are ABOVE AVERAGE women, who performed similarly to some men in the physical tests.
Ghazkuul wrote: You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.
The overlap between the top 10% of women and the bottom 50% of men is not "mythological" it was explicitly spelled out in the test results, that is a fact. Whether or not that overlap also applies to injuries is still unknown, since we were only given the averages and not a break down of how the percentiles overlapped. So what you say is false. "So far" the facts do not support your argument. They don't refute it either. They just aren't there.
Let me find a way to spell this out for you then because you still haven't managed to grasp what all of us are saying.
If the USMC is forced to let woman into Infantry and other combat MOS's, it won't be only the top 10% of physically fit females who attempt to get into those MOS's, it will be predominantly your AVERAGE female marines. Just like in the infantry now, its not the top 10% of Males who attempt to join. The difference here is that the best 10% of woman, those who were able to cut it and do well in everything were equal to the 50th percentile of males.
So what your going to have is a significantly higher attrition rate for Females attempting to join the Marine Corps, specifically in Combat Arms. On average it takes 3 months for boot camp, 2 months for Infantry training with about a month of transition time (leave, liberty, delay en-route) in between. meaning it takes 6 months to train a basic Marine infantrymen. And thats before they get to their unit where the real training begins. So for every female that attempts to get into Combat Arms and gets hurt to the point where they are either MEDSEP'd, Medically discharged or Medically retired the USMC has wasted 6 months worth of training. The USMC as I showed you above has the smallest budget for a service branch in the US, it is a running joke that if you want supplies, join the Army. Marines make do. What allows Marines to make do is to maximize available resources, having to waste significant investment in time and resources training a handful of woman so that they have the chance to serve in the infantry is not maximizing anything except waste.
Are certain females capable of not only cutting it in the Marine Infantry and not getting hurt in the process? of course, there will be a handful who are amazing Marines who the USMC would benefit from having in their Ranks of combat MOS's. But the benefits do not justify the costs involved.
Let me put it another way, my MOS was highly specialized and rather intense. You were either smart enough or you weren't. You could either grasp the concepts involved or you couldn't. Any Marine who took our course and failed was immediately reviewed by the course instructors and if they honestly felt that he wouldn't be able to pass or do so in a timely manner they shipped his butt off to another MOS that wasn't as complex. To get into my MOS you had to sit through a number of interviews and eventually get an FBI back ground check for a security clearance. These are expensive so the USMC made sure they only let the recruits who they thought could pass the course into the MOS and they still had I believe the 2nd highest attrition rate.
I served with a number of Female Marines and they did just as well as Male marines in every way, except physical fitness and endurance. On our company Rucks, Females were never given the heavy loads (PRC-150s, PRC 152s, M249, Spare Batteries, OEs) for longer then a couple of minutes every hour because they would slow the unit down considerably. We would Ruck maybe 10-15 miles and by the end there would be maybe 4-6 male stragglers who were either TFG or had been drinking to much the night before, and about 8-10 of the Female Marines. After those Rucks, 1-2 Male marines would go to BAS because they had gotten hurt somehow, either dehydration or a twisted ankle, there would usually be 4-6 females who would also go to BAS after rucks for the same problems, or they had shooting pains in their hips (First sign of the END for female marines). Our company had about 100 Marines in it, about 15 were female. Those numbers don't add up.
Again, females deserve equal treatment, pay and respect in everything, Except Combat. Combat has no EO rep who ensures that the enemy treats them the same, or gives them an extra 5 minutes every hour to catch up. If they sense a weakness in the unit they will expose it and cause more casualties to the Marines. It just is not worth it.
Ghazkuul wrote: Let me find a way to spell this out for you then because you still haven't managed to grasp what all of us are saying.
If the USMC is forced to let woman into Infantry and other combat MOS's, it won't be only the top 10% of physically fit females who attempt to get into those MOS's, it will be predominantly your AVERAGE female marines. Just like in the infantry now, its not the top 10% of Males who attempt to join. The difference here is that the best 10% of woman, those who were able to cut it and do well in everything were equal to the 50th percentile of males.
So what your going to have is a significantly higher attrition rate for Females attempting to join the Marine Corps, specifically in Combat Arms. On average it takes 3 months for boot camp, 2 months for Infantry training with about a month of transition time (leave, liberty, delay en-route) in between. meaning it takes 6 months to train a basic Marine infantrymen. And thats before they get to their unit where the real training begins. So for every female that attempts to get into Combat Arms and gets hurt to the point where they are either MEDSEP'd, Medically discharged or Medically retired the USMC has wasted 6 months worth of training. The USMC as I showed you above has the smallest budget for a service branch in the US, it is a running joke that if you want supplies, join the Army. Marines make do. What allows Marines to make do is to maximize available resources, having to waste significant investment in time and resources training a handful of woman so that they have the chance to serve in the infantry is not maximizing anything except waste.
You don't need to spell that out. I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is why you think it would take 6 months of training to filter out women who weren't above average? If you set minimum height and weight restrictions (for both men and women) and had a basic fitness test prior to entry, you could filter out the majority of unsuitable candidates on day 1. And that would work for men too, why waste 6 months of training on a guy who is never going to cut it?
Are certain females capable of not only cutting it in the Marine Infantry and not getting hurt in the process? of course, there will be a handful who are amazing Marines who the USMC would benefit from having in their Ranks of combat MOS's. But the benefits do not justify the costs involved.
Well I'm glad you agree that there would be females who could cut it. I agree with you that the numbers would certainly be small. Regarding cost, I think it's hard to say. Reading through CptJake's links, I noticed that in civilian athletes, it reported that the disparity between men and women when it came to stress fractures was quite small compared to the military. It suggested that it may be a problem with footwear, and that something as simple as boot insoles could close the gap and reduce fracture incidents for both sexes. I also noticed height was a contributing factor in certain stress fractures. Shorter people need to overstep in order to keep up marching, which contributes to hip injuries. Height restrictions could help there. Some small well thought out changes might be all that is needed. Of course, it's the military, so I they would probably find a way to waste money on this, even if it were impossible.
I'm kind of on the fence about this really. On one hand I agree with you that the average woman isn't going to cut it either way. I certainly don't think standards should be lowered to accommodate anyone. So it only effects a small number exceptional individuals. Whether it is "worth it" I can't really tell. It's hard to say how many people it effects and what the actual cost would be, so meh.
I think I'd be happy to continue with the idea that women shouldn't be allowed in combat units (for now). Perhaps some day, if an exceptional woman does really want to join, and is willing to fight her case and show that she can do the job, and doesn't need any special treatment... I could probably get behind that too.
When it comes to this i know that Ghazkuul is correct.
Everyone I have met in the military from mercs to normal says they want someone they can trust to do the job next to them......and if they are lugging a 60 pound pack at a start...i know who I'm choosing.'
The merc i talked to laughed at female soldiers ...maybe that's just part and parcel of operating in africa...I don't know.
CptJake wrote:Black troops never had the disparity in upper body strength nor the predisposition to musculature skeletal injuries. It is a gakky comparison.
Look up the Yerkes’ Army Intelligence Tests. The Army, once upon a time, 'proved' that 'average' black was too stupid to be in frontline combat, and their limited mental facilities meant they were only suitable for rear echelon positions where they could be supervised by whites.
The Army then proceeded to disregard all actual combat data, and base their policy on the tests.
So, tell me how it's a gakky comparison again?
Edit:
Bullockist wrote: The merc i talked to laughed at female soldiers ...maybe that's just part and parcel of operating in africa...I don't know.
Depends where he (assuming it was a he) was at. A lot of places they just gave women guns and called them soldiers. Needless to say, that doesn't work so well on average.
CptJake wrote:Black troops never had the disparity in upper body strength nor the predisposition to musculature skeletal injuries. It is a gakky comparison.
Look up the Yerkes’ Army Intelligence Tests. The Army, once upon a time, 'proved' that 'average' black was too stupid to be in frontline combat, and their limited mental facilities meant they were only suitable for rear echelon positions where they could be supervised by whites.
The Army then proceeded to disregard all actual combat data, and base their policy on the tests.
So, tell me how it's a gakky comparison again?
It's a poor comparison because they used a faulty set of tests contrary to reality and used it as an excuse to make policy. They ignored reality to make policy to justify banning blacks.
In this case, they did some testing which lines up with pretty much every other study or comparison of male to female athletic performance. There's plenty of evidence out there, plenty of studies, and plenty of sports in which there is a noticeable discrepancy between the performance of male and female athletes. Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.
DarkLink wrote: Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.
If you think that, then you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I actually spent a long time today going through every one of the studies CptJake posted, I certainly don't lack understanding on the issues. In fact, I believe Ghaz and I are in complete agreement on 95% of the issues.
I don't have an agenda to push, and I'm certainly not ignoring reality. What I am interested in though is people making an informed decision based on a proper understanding of the data, and not a misrepresentation, that is mixed up with personal anecdotal beliefs. Ghaz and I agree that there probably are a small number of women (perhaps very small) that would be able to cut it as combat troops. He thinks the numbers just aren't worth the cost. I don't think there is enough information about costs to make a decision either way.
What that has to do with pushing an agenda or ignoring reality, I don't know. It seems like you just picked a side, and then decided to indiscriminately label everyone who's opinion doesn't align perfectly with you own, as some kind of "liberal crackpot", regardless of what they were actually saying. So that thing you were saying about people ignoring reality because of "preconceived notions": have a look in the mirror.
DarkLink wrote: Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.
And you think no agenda is being pushed by the other side? I'm surprised at your naivety.
Why then have we not seen the marines methodology released? I keep hearing things like this:
My agenda consists entirely of the idea that if someone, anyone, has the ability and courage to do the job in the real world, then let them try. They'll either prove themselves or they won't. And that's true of anyone, man, woman, white, black, etc etc.
That's my preconceived notion. Feel free to disprove it.
Baron, I believe this very point was raised and discussed in detail beginning on page 9 of this very thread. Your point mirrors the side for from that argument- all who can meet minimums and have the courage to do so should be able to try.
The other side boils down to statistics- the study showed mixed units didn't perform as well in light infantry tasks. Women are injured far more often than men under field pack and conditions. If you are choosing a car to drive across the country and you have 2 options, one of which is 6 times more likely to break down- you go with the more reliable model. Even if that model of car does have some that can do the job better than the usually more reliable car.
You do that in combat because the only preparation you have is minimizing known problems. Soldiers that break 6 times as often in that task, are more economically used in another task.
For the research and articles offered by both sides, I encourage a read through of the thread.
DarkLink wrote: Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.
And you think no agenda is being pushed by the other side? I'm surprised at your naivety.
Why then have we not seen the marines methodology released? I keep hearing things like this:
My agenda consists entirely of the idea that if someone, anyone, has the ability and courage to do the job in the real world, then let them try. They'll either prove themselves or they won't. And that's true of anyone, man, woman, white, black, etc etc.
That's my preconceived notion. Feel free to disprove it.
Well right off the bat I can tell you that the article you quoted is absolute garbage. The so called source is stating bits and pieces of information that had already been released. This is what really stuck out to me among several other things
Women volunteering for the effort had to meet only the minimum male score for passing the Marine Physical Fitness Test and the Combat Fitness Test, according to the Marine source.
The women had not trained to meet the top male standard and it showed, according to the Marine source.
The USMC has been pushing for females to do pullups (the only part of the PFT that females currently dont do) for the better part of 4 years. If 4 years of warning orders and memo's isn't enough what more do you need?
Overall this "Marine Source" sounds more like a disgruntled marine who wanted this to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women are just as strong as men, and when that didn't happen they are throwing a hissy fit and going to the media to muddy the water.
And that's part of my problem with it. With no methodology, the statistical results the marines have shown are meaningless. For all we know, they slanted the outcome. They were supposed to release the full report, including it's methodology last month. It hasn't appeared anywhere that I know of yet, so all we can do is argue in circles. Fact is that once upon a time, all these same arguments which have made in this thread were made in the past about letting blacks into the army, except they were supposedly lacking in mental ability rather than physical ability. they pointed to the military tests and all sorts of civilian ones.
Considering that, I can't help but look on this whole business with a dubious eye.
And that's part of my problem with it. With no methodology, the statistical results the marines have shown are meaningless. For all we know, they slanted the outcome. They were supposed to release the full report, including it's methodology last month. It hasn't appeared anywhere that I know of yet, so all we can do is argue in circles. Fact is that once upon a time, all these same arguments which have made in this thread were made in the past about letting blacks into the army, except they were supposedly lacking in mental ability rather than physical ability. they pointed to the military tests and all sorts of civilian ones.
Considering that, I can't help but look on this whole business with a dubious eye.
except that arguing about allowing females into the infantry, for which there is KNOWN statistical evidence and hard proof that they are on average weaker and more prone to injury is completely DIFFERENT from the racism of keeping blacks out. And you have beaten that broken horse about a dozen times and pretty much everyone here thinks its a poor argument at best. So PLEASE stop rambling on about racism.
The USMC has been pushing for females to do pullups (the only part of the PFT that females currently dont do) for the better part of 4 years.
I think his point was that the men selected were held to different criteria than the women were. We can't actually say, based on this, that their injury rate was actually higher, all other things being equal, because of the difference in physical condition.
I'm very curious to see their methodology. I want to see if they compared putting fresh men just out of training in similar physical condition, into a unit with other men. Since, supposedly, the majority of the men involved were veteran marines. I want to see if their decrease in performance and increase in injuries is comparable.
except that arguing about allowing females into the infantry, for which there is KNOWN statistical evidence and hard proof that they are on average weaker and more prone to injury is completely DIFFERENT from the racism of keeping blacks out. .
Everyone KNEW that blacks were too mentally inferior to serve at the time! There were all sorts of statistics and supposed hard proof that were drummed up to show it! You have yet to tell me how it's different! The fact that thus far the methodology is still concealed makes me suspect that it may in fact be every bit as flawed as the Army IQ tests.
One thing I've noticed about Dakka, you could put a group of posters standing in a square, and have them watch a man climb to the top of a podium, and scream Seig Heil while lynching a Jew and waving a swastika while "Deutschland über alles" plays in the background, and at least one poster would deny it was Nazi.
The Marines don't want women on the front as grunts. So, they cheated on the test to 'prove' that they didn't have what it took.
Beats the Navy murdering 40 odd sailors to get their way with Congress back in the 1990s.
Everyone KNEW that blacks were too mentally inferior to serve at the time!
You do know "scientifically proven" means? This doesn't just mean that someone says that it works that way, this means that it's objectively proven and can be proven by anyone with the same expertise anywhere again. In the contrary, actually, people not believing in men and women being biologically different (and what really worries me is that there are people that DO...what the...) should be tested
Men and women are different in many aspects, including physical facts such as muscle mass, bone structure etc. Women are, physically, weaker than men if we're talking averages. Period. That's about as much news as Obama being not a worthy nobel prize winner. Or a good president.
Sigvatr wrote: You do know "scientifically proven" means? This doesn't just mean that someone says that it works that way, this means that it's objectively proven and can be proven by anyone with the same expertise anywhere again.
Their work was peer reviewed. They used over 100k samples, supposedly. As far as psychologists, physicians, and even quacks like phrenologists at the time were concerned, it was 'proven'. And it wasn't really challenged until after WW2 when some of the serious flaws in their methodology were pointed out.
You're also apparently forgetting that things which have been 'Scientifically proven' can later turn out to be wrong.
I think it would be better to study how women have historically performed in actual combat than to conduct this sort of test.
Or, like Philip of Burgundy, do you believe that a woman can only best a man in uniform through witchcraft?
I do find it interesting that one of the areas that mixed units actually did better in was problem solving (and, no, not the math sort). That could be a real bonus for combat engineers. Ma Duce, the heaviest of the man portable crewed weapons they tested.... they excelled at, so I'm not sure that physical strength is telling the whole story. I'm curious if physical size might be a bigger player. it was something that a lot of the women who were interviewed afterward seemed to bring up, that issues were most common among the most slightly built female marines.
Are you seriously trying to argue that women are the physical equal to men? That is a ludicrous assertion. You have offered no evidence to support it. How many women are in male professional sports? How many hold a world record in feats of strength and endurance?
There are thresholds of preformance that large numbers of men can reach that no woman ever has, so please spare me the "it is the same as racism BS".
One thing that to me is silly about the whole idea is that one side is saying we need to expend a bunch of effort trying to figure out if a tiny percentage of women might be able to function as well as men when extreme physical output is necessary. Why? There is an ample supply of bodies that can do the job with no extra effort needed to figure if they can do it. You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.
God or nature, take your pick, made women less capable than men on average and at the extremes. That's how it is. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise, and it is dangerous for both the men and women to do so. There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.
And I thought the US military was all about big investments in unreliable weapons platforms. By your logic though, I might point out that infantry should still be hitting each other with swords, since they misfire far less often than guns.
No, what I'm arguing is that the report does not tell the whole story, and that, historically, women have already proven themselves in front line positions. I've noticed a very mighty jig being danced around that 'minor' issue.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.
It's amusing that you call my comparison to racism bs, and then you seem to imply that women have their 'proper place'.
I've read a few interesting things from men who use very similar language about women to what you just did. But I don't want to Godwin the thread.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.
And I thought the US military was all about big investments in unreliable weapons platforms. By your loigic though, I might point out that infantry should still be hitting each other with swords, since they misfire far less often than guns.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.
It's amusing that you call my comparison to racism bs, and then you seem to imply that women have their 'proper place'.
So what I gather from your numerous comments baron, is that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and ignorant, nowhere did he say "proper place" in the sexist way in which you meant it.
And btw, the M2 HEAVY machine gun, they were good at firing it best out of all the crew served weapons, would you like to know why? It is the only Crew served weapon that has a HUGE tripod that is usually weighted with sand bags to ensure it doesn't "Climb" or "Jump" and is only fired in short bursts due to inaccuracy at rapid fire, even with the weighted sandbags and tripod. . M249s, M240s, Mark19s all require significant upper body strength to fire from a tripod because they Jump to much during bursts, especially the Mark19, and the 249 and 240 require even more strength to fire on the move.
The females also struggled to carry the M2 on humps because it weighs so damned much.
Did you miss the part where I said women are superior to men in some tasks and equal in others. Brute strength, especially in the modern world, isn't really an exciting advantage or reason to feel broadly superior. Unlike the racists I'm not trying to argue about the general superiority of one group over the other.
The problem with the racism analogy is that even if it were a good analogy, and it isn't, it doesn't support the argument that women should participate. Blacks being effective soldiers does not in any way offer evidence that women would be effective. Just because studies showing blacks couldn't do it were wrong, doesn't mean studies showing women won't do well are wrong. About the only way the issue of treatment of blacks is relevant is to support the unchallenged assertion that studies can be wrong, though since it's unchallenged there is no need to support it. You need to challenge arguments about the differences in the physical capabilities of the sexes by showing those differences aren't real or don't matter for a given task.
The females also struggled to carry the M2 on humps because it weighs so damned much.
I hated that damned gun during 0331 training as I lugged it around Pendleton and sliced up my thumbs while setting headspace and timing. Could not get past my incredulity that we haven't managed in 100 years to come up with a replacement weapon that was simpler, lighter and better. It still astonishes me that thing is a primary weapon. Inventors and engineers need to get their act together.
Gitzbitah wrote: Well, baron , if you will not accept common sense, anecdotal evidence from serving military folks or scientific tests what proof will you take?
Well, I'm waiting for any common sense, and 'there i was' stories from random joes currently serving don't beat actual war records (over 90 women became Heroes of the Soviet Union for their service in combat, the US and UK only have ever handed out their highest honors once, respectively, to a woman, and on both cases to civilians). The test at hand is not yet scientific proof of anything, and until they release their methodology, it little better than an anecdote.
I fully admit that women do not have the same level of upper body strength as men, on average. But my question is, 'are they good soldiers?' or, rather, Marines, in this case. Physical strength is not the only component of that. I think that the observations of a lot of the grunts coming out of this are being overlooked in favor of all or nothing rhetoric from both sides. Not every woman is cut out to be a Marine any more than every man is. I think the simplest solution would be to have a minimum height and weight for women wanting to be grunts and a in depth reexamination of the physical fitness requirements for women. Requiring them to only meet the bare minimum obviously is not working.
So what I gather from your numerous comments baron, is that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and ignorant, nowhere did he say "proper place" in the sexist way in which you meant it.
I did state he implied it rather than saying it. And not everyone. I generally respond respectfully to those who I feel have earned said.
It is the only Crew served weapon that has a HUGE tripod that is usually weighted with sand bags to ensure it doesn't "Climb" or "Jump"
She was also tested, and was found to be among the weapons that mixed units did not perform as well with. I doubt climb was an issue. So, why did they fail to perform? As I've said many times, until we have a methodology in hand, this report is essentially meaningless.
I hated that damned gun during 0331 training as I lugged it around Pendleton and sliced up my thumbs while setting headspace and timing. Could not get past my incredulity that we haven't managed in 100 years to come up with a replacement weapon that was simpler, lighter and better. It still astonishes me that thing is a primary weapon. Inventors and engineers need to get their act together.
Be glad they didn't. When they tried ot change the handguns, it was a disaster and now they're in a rush to go back to the same or similar guns they had before. People seem to forget that the old theory about wounding the enemy only works if you're fighting someone who cares about casualties.
So just to sum this up: you are denying the fact that there's a biological difference between man and woman.
I don't see any merit in discussing anything with someone who openly rejects common sense and lacks a basic understanding of the topic in question. Waste of time. You let your fanaticism / ideology blind your sight for the actual world and that cannot lead to anything good for anyone. That works on tumblr, but not if you are really, genuinely interested in discussing a matter.
Evaluation of the Performance of Females as Light Infantry Soldiers
This article on hindawi seemed to provide some interesting statistics. Attrition rate was roughly the same over a 3 year period, although there were long term concerns. 21 percent of females had stress fractures- as opposed to 2 percent of males. That is far higher than I thought from earlier in the thread.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge combat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
Exactly. Without a methodology a scientific study is useless as it is impossible to reproduce or analyse for methodological errors.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.
Out of curiosity though, what roles do women perform better than males at in the military? While I certainly won't argue that they fall behind men in active combat roles, surely they exceed them in other areas? After all, the report does say:
“in a decision-making study that we ran in which all male and integrated groups attempted to solve challenging field problems [that involved] varying levels of both physical and cognitive difficulty… the female integrated teams (with one female and three or four males) performed as well or better than the all-male teams.”
I know that women make better Police Officers than men for example so they'd naturally make better Military Police (I assume). I also hear that they tend to be pretty brutal Staff Sargents.
It's not so much necessarily women being better or worse at certain things, per se. They're just like any male, with the sole exception that they have a disadvantage performing tasks that are very physically demanding. I went to Marine OCS (went through, chose not to comission), there were plenty of badass female candidates that I'd trust implicitly, but I also know they would struggle to keep up with the male standards. Every guy there could do 20+ pullups, but in my life I've never met a female who could do more than iirc 12, and they couldn't carry the same weight on rucks without struggling to keep up, and at OCS you probably never carry more than 60lbs plus your rifle. After nearly a decade of doing crossfit, women can't handle the weight men can. I can lift more weight than even most elite level female lifters, and while I'm pretty strong I'm not the next Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson by any means. On average, women tend to do ~60% of the weight guys do, as a rough estimate, and even at that reduced weight, guys tend to get slightly faster times in workouts that focus on lifting heavy stuff.
As an engineer now, I know plenty of intelligent women who are just as good of engineers as any male engineer.
Females are absolutely very capable, but "employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities". Don't send your physically weakest people to do your most physically demanding job. There are absolutely women who can do the job, but your average jane doe probably can't. I'm personally not saying anything on whether or not they should completely ban women or just only select top female performers to go, but I do understand the economic case.
She was also tested, and was found to be among the weapons that mixed units did not perform as well with. I doubt climb was an issue. So, why did they fail to perform? As I've said many times, until we have a methodology in hand, this report is essentially meaningless.
Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly. If you can't toss around 100lbs pretty easily for extended periods you won't be able to load rapidly and performance suffers. And trust me, from nearly a decade of doing crossfit, it takes a pretty badass woman to handle 100lbs for more than a few reps continuously. I know some very tough women who would have trouble keeping up a fast pace handling rounds for it.
You might not know the methodology, but most any Marine can recreate it for you with reasonable accuracy. It's not rocket science. "Your fireteam needs to carry this dummy up this hill, then fire the ma deuce at the target downrange. Time starts in 3, 2, 1, go". Stuff like that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
Yep. This is borderline surreal to read.
I'm out for a day, and I come back to this pretty hilarious string.
I will say, though, that $400 ashtray clip I posted from the west wing? That show was very liberal. It was also typically very well informed, so it avoided a lot of pitfalls such as not understanding how the military budget works, and it wasn't afraid to occasionally cross political lines and have a conservative call a liberal on something that wasn't accurate. It's a phenominal show all around.
DarkLink wrote: Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly.
Yeah, so do tanks, and tanks they excelled at. So what's the scoop? While I grant they lack upper body strength, I ask the question is that the be all and end all of being a good soldier? I know the army has suddenly realized that women are a different shape, and is working on body armor for women. If it's the kit that's the problem, let's look at the kit. Can it be made lighter without sacrificing reliability? (I highly doubt that there is a dog face or grunt in history that will turn up their noses at a lighter kit, as long as it still does the job as effectively.)
Signet-Powers wrote: I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.
As far as persons not able to do it go, it's the challenge. It's the idea that it might straighten things out that are wrong in their lives. It's the lack of work at home. So on and so on. There are as many reasons for trying as their are new recruits.
also: I agree that things have become somewhat surreal. Malus and Walrus are defending my position, and we're much better known for locking horns over issues than agreeing on them.
DarkLink wrote: Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly.
Yeah, so do tanks, and tanks they excelled at. So what's the scoop? While I grant they lack upper body strength, I ask the question is that the be all and end all of being a good soldier? I know the army has suddenly realized that women are a different shape, and is working on body armor for women. If it's the kit that's the problem, let's look at the kit. Can it be made lighter without sacrificing reliability? (I highly doubt that there is a dog face or grunt in history that will turn up their noses at a lighter kit, as long as it still does the job as effectively.)
Signet-Powers wrote: I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.
As far as persons not able to do it go, it's the challenge. It's the idea that it might straighten things out that are wrong in their lives. It's the lack of work at home. So on and so on. There are as many reasons for trying as their are new recruits.
also: I agree that things have become somewhat surreal. Malus and Walrus are defending my position, and we're much better known for locking horns over issues than agreeing on them.
M1
Round is a cartridge damn near. Out the storage bin into the firing chamber, breech closed. fire. Breech open for new round, spent casing ejected, new round loaded. not much movement. Jake has a better idea how this goes being a Tanker
Tow artillery/ SP Artillery (155mm)
Round itself prep, Fuse's arranged, powder bags, primer
Receive Fire Mission from FDC
Gunner & asst. gunner lay tube (verifies deflection and quadrant falls with the firing "T")
Round(s) are fused, powder bags cut Verified by Section Chief
Round is passed to loader who shoves it up the pipe
Asst. loader with ramming rod slams the round up
Cut powder is loaded behind the rammed round
Breech closed by Loader, Breech primed with firing catridge
Lanyard hooked, pulled, fire
Breech open manually
Chamber swabbed with rag rod to estinguish(sp) embers
process repeated till mission complete
FDC call the number of rounds to fire
Gitzbitah wrote: Evaluation of the Performance of Females as Light Infantry Soldiers
This article on hindawi seemed to provide some interesting statistics. Attrition rate was roughly the same over a 3 year period, although there were long term concerns. 21 percent of females had stress fractures- as opposed to 2 percent of males. That is far higher than I thought from earlier in the thread.
28% for women, 37% for men. That's actually a pretty large difference in attrition there, though can be explained as the men were assigned there, and the women were volunteers. Interestingly, only 1% of men went on to be officers, 5% of women did.
This was interesting, and bares out my suggestion about a minimum size for females trying to enter the infantry:
" On univariate analysis, the only variables that were found to have a statistically significant relationship to the incidence of stress fractures among females were the lower BMI (22.0 kg·m−2 versus 23.3 kg·m−2, ) and less body fat (16.9 kg versus 18.7 kg, ) among those with stress fractures as compared with those without stress fractures. "
So, bigger girls break less. Which is also what the grunts coming out of the study were saying.
The fact remains that if you can find the women that could hack it in a front line unit, the costs involved finding those few would be prohibitive. This fact has already been pretty well laid out earlier.
M1
Round is a cartridge damn near. Out the storage bin into the firing chamber, breech closed. fire. Breech open for new round, spent casing ejected, new round loaded. not much movement. Jake has a better idea how this goes being a Tanker
Tow artillery/ SP Artillery (155mm)
Round itself prep, Fuse's arranged, powder bags, primer
[Edit read his post for full list]
M1's weighs about 50 pounds for that cartridge. While the 155 weighs about 100 pounds, it's picked up by two guys (IIRC) . So, my question then is: at what point is the problem taking place. Is it across the board, or at specific stages? How were they gauging effectiveness? (Shots on targets seemed to be the rule, but without their methodology we don't know.)
The 'Why' is missing. Is it something that requires a change in physical requirements, or is it something that can be worked around by altering training? Or is it just the difference experianced troops and people just out of training? Why does the Army consider their performance acceptable (and has for some time, I've met female loaders who were in Iraq.) and the marines not? What was different? That's why I say we don't have the whole picture, and that arguing our positions based on a summery isn't getting us anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The fact remains that if you can find the women that could hack it in a front line unit, the costs involved finding those few would be prohibitive. This fact has already been pretty well laid out earlier.
How much do you think would really have to change? And point me to real numbers, not guesses or assertions.
Two guys do not carry the round. Its a one service member carry/pass off.
#1 Cannoneer preps the round
Section Chief verifies fuse/fuse setting
#2 Cannoneer grabs the round and hauls to loader
Loader throws it in the breech
#2 Punches the ram into firing chamber
#3 Cannoneer tosses the cut charge bag after Section Chief verifies the correct cut has been made
Loader receives charge from #3 Cannoneer
Loader throws in the charge, closes the breech, primes the breech, and hook lanyard
Loader fires the round
A two man carry was for the M110 or the 8inch cannon SP cannon being the damn shell was 200+ lbs
M1
Round is a cartridge damn near. Out the storage bin into the firing chamber, breech closed. fire. Breech open for new round, spent casing ejected, new round loaded. not much movement. Jake has a better idea how this goes being a Tanker
Tow artillery/ SP Artillery (155mm)
Round itself prep, Fuse's arranged, powder bags, primer
[Edit read his post for full list]
M1's weighs about 50 pounds for that cartridge. While the 155 weighs about 100 pounds, it's picked up by two guys (IIRC) . So, my question then is: at what point is the problem taking place. Is it across the board, or at specific stages? How were they gauging effectiveness? (Shots on targets seemed to be the rule, but without their methodology we don't know.)
The 'Why' is missing. Is it something that requires a change in physical requirements, or is it something that can be worked around by altering training? Or is it just the difference experianced troops and people just out of training? Why does the Army consider their performance acceptable (and has for some time, I've met female loaders who were in Iraq.) and the marines not? What was different? That's why I say we don't have the whole picture, and that arguing our positions based on a summery isn't getting us anywhere.
You definitely did not meet any Females who served as loaders on tanks or artillery who were in Iraq.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
Yep. This is borderline surreal to read.
I find it more surreal that civilians are lecturing serving soldiers on gender equality and what women in the army are physically capable of.
Looking at some of Barons recent comments in the ISIL thread (p72), I get the feeling he's more interested in the US looking bad than anything to do with this topic.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Looking at some of Barons recent comments in the ISIL thread (p72), I get the feeling he's more interested in the US looking bad than anything to do with this topic.
He's got some pretty derptastic views on Israel as well. Some people earn their place on ignore far more gracefully than others.
Here's an article from the Navy times about the two women who made it past Ranger school out of the nineteen who started. According to the article, the school normally has a 45% pass rate. Two out of nineteen is far below that percentage, meaning that money which could have been used graduating men was pissed away.
"The move to integrate the military's most storied commando units comes the day after news broke that two women had passed the Army's arduous Ranger course. Nineteen women began the course, which has about a 45 percent passing rate."
But is this really true? Were there an additional 19 qualified men who were turned down to make room for the women? Were there open positions for the additional seven (hypothetical) male graduates, or would they have been redundant? And, assuming we could in fact have had those additional seven graduates, is the value of having seven more men, all of them worse than the 94 who did graduate, really that significant? Is it so vital to have the absolute best possible efficiency in training budgets that it takes priority over all other factors?
But is this really true? Were there an additional 19 qualified men who were turned down to make room for the women? Were there open positions for the additional seven (hypothetical) male graduates, or would they have been redundant? And, assuming we could in fact have had those additional seven graduates, is the value of having seven more men, all of them worse than the 94 who did graduate, really that significant? Is it so vital to have the absolute best possible efficiency in training budgets that it takes priority over all other factors?
Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.
Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.
Yep. This is borderline surreal to read.
I find it more surreal that civilians are lecturing serving soldiers on gender equality and what women in the army are physically capable of.
(FYI, I'm not military).
We're "lecturing" on methodology in scientific studies more than anything really.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.
And all these people on the waiting lists are as qualified as the people who do get picked? They aren't just filling slots for the sake of filling slots? Having lots of demand for something doesn't mean that the 500th person on the waiting list is really a significant loss to the military.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.
And all these people on the waiting lists are as qualified as the people who do get picked? They aren't just filling slots for the sake of filling slots? Having lots of demand for something doesn't mean that the 500th person on the waiting list is really a significant loss to the military.
if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.
In this specific case they are taking the place of Male Marines going to Infantry training, so its not as big of a deal because we can push a lot of people into those general types of classes. But the more specialized schools and training when you hit the feet, thats a big downside and they would eat up precious training spots. So again by your logic, woman aren't justified taking those training slots.
I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else. Even though civilisation has always been run by men. And nearly everything of any value was invented by men. And women need to take their clothes off to get anywhere in life.
I'm not knocking individual women here, it's just that I've had a lot of girlfriends and 95% of my friends and colleagues are female, so I most certainly do not put women on a pedestal. Only men who don't know any women do that.
Ghazkuul wrote: if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.
No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what the actual consequence of taking female candidates is. Who are the men getting turned down? Are they awesome candidates that the military really needs, or are they low-tier candidates that the military puts on the waiting list just in case some of the better candidates drop out and they need a few more warm bodies to fill the slots? How much of a drop in quality is there from the top of the class to the best male candidates who don't get in? If we assume that we absolutely must take some female candidates can you quantify the potential drop in quality of our military as a result of not taking the top male candidates on the waiting list?
And I'm asking these questions sincerely. I'm obviously not in the military and I don't know how generous or restricted the selection process is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NoPoet wrote: I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else. Even though civilisation has always been run by men. And nearly everything of any value was invented by men. And women need to take their clothes off to get anywhere in life.
I'm not knocking individual women here, it's just that I've had a lot of girlfriends and 95% of my friends and colleagues are female, so I most certainly do not put women on a pedestal. Only men who don't know any women do that.
Well, that's certainly a nice straw man post. Could you provide some examples of who these people are that seriously argue that women are better at everything?
PS: if you think that men having more power or inventing "nearly everything of value" is the result of inherent superiority and not coincidences of culture then you aren't dealing with reality.
PPS: you might want to thank a woman for the fact that you're reading this on a computer.
Ghazkuul wrote: if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.
No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what the actual consequence of taking female candidates is. Who are the men getting turned down? Are they awesome candidates that the military really needs, or are they low-tier candidates that the military puts on the waiting list just in case some of the better candidates drop out and they need a few more warm bodies to fill the slots? How much of a drop in quality is there from the top of the class to the best male candidates who don't get in? If we assume that we absolutely must take some female candidates can you quantify the potential drop in quality of our military as a result of not taking the top male candidates on the waiting list?
And I'm asking these questions sincerely. I'm obviously not in the military and I don't know how generous or restricted the selection process is.
No, I can't quantify the drop in quality because I don't have access to the hundreds of thousands of records that that information would require. Nor do I have the time to wade through hundreds of thousands of documents to provide you with a nice neat number. What I can tell you is that Yes there would be a drop in quality because the military has limited resources for training and any gap in training can lead to a significant downgrade in performance.
My unit was forced to deploy to afghanistan without a Collection Manager. Usually the collection manager is a SSgt or a Sgt, since we didn't have anyone trained for it and we didn't have the Staff NCOs/Sgts to spare for the billet we had to give it to a LCpl who later picked up Cpl while deployed. So for the first 2 months we were forced to operate at a limited capacity because the training billets for a Collection manager were filled to capacity.
Peregrine wrote: [quote=]Well, that's certainly a nice straw man post. Could you provide some examples of who these people are that seriously argue that women are better at everything?
PS: if you think that men having more power or inventing "nearly everything of value" is the result of inherent superiority and not coincidences of culture then you aren't dealing with reality.
PPS: you might want to thank a woman for the fact that you're reading this on a computer.
Can't you read? We are constantly surrounded by examples of things women are supposedly better at - I literally cannot pick one thing out of the massive bombardment of this stuff we get every day.
EDIT: Yes I can. Nothing is being done to address the educational gap between boys and girls (for example), or to explore why girls do indeed tend to outperform boys. But every time men do something women aren't allowed to do - for example form societies, or create job roles such as fireman and soldier - women's rights groups break into these on grounds of misogyny. Men are not allowed to break into women's groups, and job roles that are female only ARE allowed to be created - there are laws about this.
1. I never said men are better at everything. I said women are NOT better at everything.
2. Quite a few coincidences, covering thousands of cultures over millennia. I guess we can call the Amazons the exception to the rule. They're mythical, but hey, females in charge and all that.
3. I do thank a woman - my mum - and I also thank my dad. Yeah, dads do exist.
NoPoet wrote: Can't you read? We are constantly surrounded by examples of things women are supposedly better at - I literally cannot pick one thing out of the massive bombardment of this stuff we get every day.
IOW, you don't have any examples and you're building a straw man.
EDIT: Yes I can. Nothing is being done to address the educational gap between boys and girls (for example), or to explore why girls do indeed tend to outperform boys.
First, neglecting one issue that hurts men isn't evidence for your claim of people saying "women are better at everything".
Second, do you actually have any evidence that nobody cares that girls outperform boys on certain tests? I'll offer the obvious counter-example that all of my engineering classes had a rather overwhelming male majority. So if nobody cares about the poor men then why wasn't I one of the few men in a class full of women?
But every time men do something women aren't allowed to do - for example form societies, or create job roles such as fireman and soldier - women's rights groups break into these on grounds of misogyny.
Well yes, you shouldn't be able to create male-only jobs just for the sake of having male-only jobs. If women are capable of doing those jobs then they should be able to do them.
Men are not allowed to break into women's groups, and job roles that are female only ARE allowed to be created - there are laws about this.
So, what exactly are these jobs that are limited by law to only women?
1. I never said men are better at everything. I said women are NOT better at everything.
You claimed that "studies" are proving that women are better at everything. Let's look at your own words:
I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else.
Given how badly you're failing to provide evidence for your claim I think we can conclude that saying this wasn't a very good idea.
2. Quite a few coincidences, covering thousands of cultures over millennia. I guess we can call the Amazons the exception to the rule. They're mythical, but hey, females in charge and all that.
Sigh. You do realize that those cultures came from the same roots, right? And that once a group gains power it usually tries to keep that power? Men have so far succeeded at that in most cultures, but that doesn't make them inherently superior. It just means they had a head start.
And really, I don't see why you think this is a convincing argument in the first place. I mean, would you argue that your boss shouldn't be fired because they've been your boss for so long, and refuse to talk about whether or not they're actually better at their job than their potential replacement? Of course not. So why should "men have been in charge in the past" be a convincing argument?
3. I do thank a woman - my mum - and I also thank my dad.
Did you even read the link?
Yeah, dads do exist.
Yeah, those poor dads, never being recognized for existing...
