Meh, if they can meet the requirements they should be let in, regardless of gender. That doesn't mean, of course, that as many women can meet the requirements as men, not by a long shot, but it does mean that we should recognise that if an elite woman
The article ends with a comparison of elite sport being dominated by men. And yeah, once you're talking about the best 1,000 odd people in a country of 300 million, you're so far down the skinny end of the bell curve so that even the most exceptional woman is unlikely to compete with the best men. But the marine corps is 200,000 strong, of which about 20,000 are infantry. And that isn't drawn from the whole population, but just from that section that is willing to join up. So you're not looking anywhere near the same part of the bell curve, and it becomes much more reasonable to think a woman might meet those standards.
If Isreal and Russia can have female combat units then I'm sure that we can handle it as well. Also I don't see the issue with essentially doubling the pool from which you can draw combatants
Why would the Marines be special? I'm sure the Israelis didn't think 'oh well, it's okay, we're not trying to be as good as the Marines' when they decided to include women...
Personnally, I don't see the point. If someone has the will and the capacity... I bet there's a large number of women in todays army that could level me with a single punch, so...
If they don't let women in they need to stop letting in skinny dudes. This womans read on deterioritive health effects in her unit also sound pretty amateur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Women don't have the "xxx" to do "yyy" has been used to keep women out of all sorts of occupations for centuries.
Israel, pound for pound one of the toughest countries in the world, conscripts women into the infantry.
They point out there's data from other countries, but say the Marines are different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the link to her article.
Because people keep telling them they are. That's about it. Most of the fatigue and muscle deterioration she noted was due to issues with lengthy deployments and physical activity scheduling which speaks to the type of warfare marines should and should not be engaged in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Ahh but women do have the "XX."
I see what you mean though, and yes Israel is very tough. They also have gays and transgendered persons in the services.
They're also trying to limit womens roles do to the increasing power of extremists factions within their own governance. To date mixed gender combat operations have never caused major problems.
Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
Maybe the Isralies are defending a smaller area and aren't involved in extended marches carrying extreme loads in remote areas like the Marines are. I only say this in speculation, since I honestly don't know the circumstance of why a Marine that's had combat experience would say they're different.
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Male nature towards the female isn't what caused the medic to go to the woman. Nor is is what compels marines to recover hit or fallen soldiers. Also, farmers don't have those skills or that level of knowledge of marine behavior. I'm not gonna say "BS it'll never happen" because it could. It sounded like a vaguely plausible scenario. I'll call bs because if you replace a woman with a dude the exact same scenario plays out.
You also don't have a very good read on male behavior if you think that self sacrifice is an immediate or instinctive reaction to females in danger. We're a species that is majority female. Men can be exceptionally callous and uncaring towards women and there is ten thousand years of history to prove that dudes don't go around taking bullets for women at every opportunity. This is you projecting.
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Nah I'm sure this is exactly the type of things happening over plenty of modern battlefields... but how does being a female plays in that scenario? A rape scenario I get, but then if the women agreed to do battle, she surely agreed to put her life and safety on the line.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
60 pounds distributed on the front and back of the torso isn't a lot of weight. It's also not what led to the issues described in that article which were acute non tramatic stress issues that I haven't seen reported anywhere else. It sounds like she just didn't know how to get her injuries treated when she could have.
I just trashed a female and caused multiple casualties I also got the medic. I also got maybe 2-3 more troops wounded. I won't know till after the engagement. I just trashed a platoon psych and cohesion just by her screaming alone. What would happen if I started to specifically target females first. A badly wounded female is no joke. It fukks up everyone mentality
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
That's cool and impressive, but Ive known women (albeit not bery feminine ones, I'll admit), that trained about 6 hours a day in martial art, boxing and other various combat sports. While it might be an exception, I have no doubt that woman would've easily matched marines in most regards.
Women that dedicated to combat are probably very rare, but if they are, then it would sucks being told to 'go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich' (I keeed )
@Jihadin : Ah okay yeah, mentally, it might cause greater stress on the platoon. But that's somehow still sexism based on the beleif that women shouldn't go on the battlefield. If the argument revolves around self-fulfilling prophecies, I think it might simply be healthier to change that perception. Plus I'm all for more Femme Fatale, it's something our society miss a lot.
Jihadin wrote:I just trashed a female and caused multiple casualties I also got the medic. I also got maybe 2-3 more troops wounded. I won't know till after the engagement. I just trashed a platoon psych and cohesion just by her screaming alone. What would happen if I started to specifically target females first. A badly wounded female is no joke. It fukks up everyone mentality
A badly wounded person you are close to feths up your mentality, regardless of gender. You're projecting your own white knighting onto this scenario and you just made up the most skilled sniper on the planet for a silly rant. Stop this.
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Huh. I was not aware we routinely left wounded male soldiers to die without making any attempt to save them.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
That's cool and impressive, but Ive known women (albeit not bery feminine ones, I'll admit), that trained about 6 hours a day in martial art, boxing and other various combat sports. While it might be an exception, I have no doubt that woman would've easily matched marines in most regards.
Women that dedicated to combat are probably very rare, but if they are, then it would sucks being told to 'go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich' (I keeed )
It's still not the same thing. I've also know similar women, and I know that there are signifigant rest periods in that 6 hours a day of training. On a hump, you don't get that kind of rest .
When I was in, you were obligated to get females to a shower facility every 4 days, for health reasons - at least in the army (any other branches have any significant departure from that?), so mostly I was curious about how events like the Iraq invasion would go down - where I had buddies in Mopp 3 for something on the order of 40 days.
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Huh. I was not aware we routinely left wounded male soldiers to die without making any attempt to save them.
I think routinely if the medic is hit they wouldn't attempt to move the wounded until after they've established that it's possible to do so without getting shot. When a sniper is clearly shooting people attempting to recover the wounded in an open environment you just let them bleed until they can be saved without more casualties. Hence the smoke and such. The bs part is the implication that everyone would rush up to save the woman (not the medic) at once. It's also fairly bs to think that the sniper can accurately shoot out both the soldiers knees and then go rambo and gun down the entire unit in the space of a few seconds. This dude has some pretty impressive skills for a farmer.
Nope...you see the part where I mention a trained sniper few and far inbetween. They are out there. The marines in Fullujah well attest to that one when they moved through the graveyard. I will also attest to one that shut down the northern side of Bagram for 5 hrs in '08. I will also attest to the one in 2010 that shot my troop in the head (ACH saved his butt) who was manning the turret in a convoy moving about 40 mph going towards FoB Wilson in Southern Afghanistan.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
That's cool and impressive, but Ive known women (albeit not bery feminine ones, I'll admit), that trained about 6 hours a day in martial art, boxing and other various combat sports. While it might be an exception, I have no doubt that woman would've easily matched marines in most regards.
Women that dedicated to combat are probably very rare, but if they are, then it would sucks being told to 'go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich' (I keeed )
It's still not the same thing. I've also know similar women, and I know that there are signifigant rest periods in that 6 hours a day of training. On a hump, you don't get that kind of rest .
Woman don't have required physical rest periods in excess of that of men for lengthy strenuous travel. That is an artifact of muscle mass, bone structure, diet, and technique. Males tend to be larger and can carry larger loads for longer, but they also tend to suffer stress and impact related injuries more due to their increased weight. The injuries in the article are also related to deployment schedule and not gender. Nothing that she described is gender specific. Please stop pretending like you know what these things are and mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Nope...you see the part where I mention a trained sniper few and far inbetween. They are out there. The marines in Fullujah well attest to that one when they moved through the graveyard. I will also attest to one that shut down the northern side of Bagram for 5 hrs in '08. I will also attest to the one in 2010 that shot my troop in the head (ACH saved his butt) who was manning the turret in a convoy moving about 40 mph going towards FoB Wilson in Southern Afghanistan.
Those guys all sound kinda gakky compared to the space marine you invented for your story.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Maybe it's Rambo from Rambo 2? You know, the one that holds an entire armoured division of russians by himself?
Thats easier to do than a cold kill of an entire unit from one sniper in the span of a few seconds. All it takes to hold up a lot of people is to shoot a few as they try to move around an open area. They will then wait until you can be killed by a plane. I've heard plenty of stories of a sniper or two "holding up an army". I've yet to hear of one that "killed everyone super fast".
Minimum is 5 min for either a fast mover to appear or a Apache on patrol. Then you also have to know where the sniper is at to put steel on target. A lot can happen in five minutes.
A sniper is not to suppose to stay long enough to kill an entire unit...a platoon like 40 guys. As for the "farmer" all we know he is just a farmer. Actually he's an insurgent from Kygykastan or maybe Bosnia/Kosovo
ShumaGorath wrote:Woman don't have required physical rest periods in excess of that of men for lengthy strenuous travel. That is an artifact of muscle mass, bone structure, diet, and technique. Males tend to be larger and can carry larger loads for longer, but they also tend to suffer stress and impact related injuries more due to their increased weight. The injuries in the article are also related to deployment schedule and not gender. Nothing that she described is gender specific. Please stop pretending like you know what these things are and mean.
Is what I was thinking. Generally, women who tend to slack off more during sports are simply those that aren't as much into sport, hence lower physical threshold and, more importantly, lower mental threshold.
Without training, women won't develop much in the way of muscle mass, while men will, so that's a factor I could understand being brought up at first. I don't know of anything that would make them literally less enduring to physical stress, when the same muscle mass is involved.
The one thing I could see being a valid point is, as Bromsy brought up, hygiene and maybe periods. But there's pills for that...
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
60 pounds distributed on the front and back of the torso isn't a lot of weight. It's also not what led to the issues described in that article which were acute non tramatic stress issues that I haven't seen reported anywhere else. It sounds like she just didn't know how to get her injuries treated when she could have.
A couple of years of deployment didn't teach her a thing, I guess. Did you read her actual article that I posted the link to? It wasn't like she had easy acess to a hospital where she was at.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
60 pounds distributed on the front and back of the torso isn't a lot of weight. It's also not what led to the issues described in that article which were acute non tramatic stress issues that I haven't seen reported anywhere else. It sounds like she just didn't know how to get her injuries treated when she could have.
A couple of years of deployment didn't teach her a thing, I guess. Did you read her actual article that I posted the link to? It wasn't like she had easy acess to a hospital where she was at.
No, and that's telling by the injuries that she had that likely took months to develop. That's not gender, that's deployment scheduling. That could of (and has thousands of times) happened to the men as well.
The one thing I could see being a valid point is, as Bromsy brought up, hygiene and maybe periods. But there's pills for that...
They let people smoke. That's not really any better.
That's baaaaaad, but I guess you can't really control life habits when the Marine (lol I almost typed Space ) is at home, and it could cause huge stress related problems if they were suddenly cut off...
You mentioned that they shouldn't let in skinny dudes if the y don't allow women. They don't induct or keep people that don't meet the physical standards.
Height and weight standard. You can be overweight or underweight Depends on your age bracket. I've seen soldiers reclassed if underweight but majority of overweight is processed out the army
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Shuma. Its not Deployment schedule its called CAP Cycle now
One other thing to consider is the economics of the situation.
How costly will it be to put a woman through boot camp, then infantry school and have to drop her out because she can't meet the physical requirements?
Back in the long ago when I was in boot camp, we had an attrition rate, for various reasons, of about 30% in my platoon.
The attrition was a lot less in infantry school because by then the ones that couldn't take the stress physically and mentally had pretty much been weeded out.
According to the article written in Marine publication, boot camp physical standards are lower for women.
A woman goes through boot camp, meeting a lower physical standard, hits infantry school, displacing a male, then falls out at some point in her training there, costing the time and money that could have been used on someone that could meet the standards of infantry school.
With the budget cutbacks, how much can be wasted in this manner?
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
Are you saying that people might get shot?
God forbid that soldiers might be put in a position of danger.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
60 pounds distributed on the front and back of the torso isn't a lot of weight. It's also not what led to the issues described in that article which were acute non tramatic stress issues that I haven't seen reported anywhere else. It sounds like she just didn't know how to get her injuries treated when she could have.
I invite you to try humping with that load, running at times, about 25 miles a day over rough terrain in extreme weather conditions for an extended period to find out if you stick to you statement that "it isn't a lot of weight".
God forbid that soldiers might be put in a position of danger
Its nothing but a trip to the casino. Either you win big or lose it all but never is it dangerous unless you do something stupid.
As for the body armor...plates front and back...side plates...groin protecter...kidney pad...Deltoid protecters...ammo (you carry more then just a basic load)...camelback...weapon (M4/M249/M240B), IFAK, ACH, kneee pads, elbow pads, SINGAR possibly...extra ammo for the crew serve...frags...smoke grenades...oh possible rounds for the M204 underslung on the M4 assorted rounds for that. NVG's, batteries, someone lugging the foldable stretcher, combat life saver bag to a few (one per squad) extra water, a spare barrel for the 249 to name a few...in 120-130 heat index...add twenty more due to body armor. Its not 60lbs. Its around 140 lbs average. That not including whatever else the soldier perfer to bring with him on a outing.
Relapse wrote:One other thing to consider is the economics of the situation.
How costly will it be to put a woman through boot camp, then infantry school and have to drop her out because she can't meet the physical requirements?
Back in the long ago when I was in boot camp, we had an attrition rate, for various reasons, of about 30% in my platoon.
The attrition was a lot less in infantry school because by then the ones that couldn't take the stress physically and mentally had pretty much been weeded out.
According to the article written in Marine publication, boot camp physical standards are lower for women.
A woman goes through boot camp, meeting a lower physical standard, hits infantry school, displacing a male, then falls out at some point in her training there, costing the time and money that could have been used on someone that could meet the standards of infantry school.
With the budget cutbacks, how much can be wasted in this manner?
Countries already do this, we know for a fact that woman can fight in infantry divisions, because they already have
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that people might get shot?
God forbid that soldiers might be put in a position of danger.
He appears to be saying that male Marines are unreliable and will die like lemmings trying to rescue a squadmate, but only if they want to feth them.
Where's that level of realism in my tabletop games
Eldar player - Oh I rolled a 6 on my sniper's shot, I get to pick who I want! There, that female modeled soldier!
IG player - Darn okay, let me roll Ld on each of her squadmate to see if they acquire suicidal tendencies... *Bucket time!*
Relapse wrote:One other thing to consider is the economics of the situation.
How costly will it be to put a woman through boot camp, then infantry school and have to drop her out because she can't meet the physical requirements?
Back in the long ago when I was in boot camp, we had an attrition rate, for various reasons, of about 30% in my platoon.
The attrition was a lot less in infantry school because by then the ones that couldn't take the stress physically and mentally had pretty much been weeded out.
According to the article written in Marine publication, boot camp physical standards are lower for women.
A woman goes through boot camp, meeting a lower physical standard, hits infantry school, displacing a male, then falls out at some point in her training there, costing the time and money that could have been used on someone that could meet the standards of infantry school.
With the budget cutbacks, how much can be wasted in this manner?
Countries already do this, we know for a fact that woman can fight in infantry divisions, because they already have
I'll just say it again, it was stated in the article she wrote that the Marines situation was different than other countries.
Instead of throwing up her hands and giving up pathetically, she should come up with solutions. A lot of good things in life come from hard work, and membership in the armed forces is one of them.
Melissia wrote:Badly fitting uniforms and armor have been identified as one of the primary causes for long-risk of injury for female soldiers, for example.
Nothing says 'better' like a form fitting armored suit with an arm cannon
Kilkrazy wrote:Israel, pound for pound one of the toughest countries in the world, conscripts women into the infantry.
Just because women in large numbers have actually done the job, isn't any evidence that they can actually do the job. In fact, citing where it's been widely successful having women in wider roles in the military as evidence of it being possible to have women in wider roles in the military is the single most insane, irritational nonsense I've ever head. Quite with your hyper-liberal-radical-feminist-dick-chopping-off jibber jabber.
If women really want to help save america and it's freedom, they should put more effort into looking pretty. Clearly this will inspire the real (male) soldiers into putting even more effort into protecting the country so they keep their terrorists hands off their women.
Check out her actual article when you get a chance. Marines are often packing 60 plus pounds of green gak along with a rifle and body armor over rough terrain for miles at a time, and it's not at an easy pace.
60 pounds distributed on the front and back of the torso isn't a lot of weight. It's also not what led to the issues described in that article which were acute non tramatic stress issues that I haven't seen reported anywhere else. It sounds like she just didn't know how to get her injuries treated when she could have.
You try marching 10+ miles (at approx 12-13 minutes per mile pace average) over rough terrain with 60 extra pounds of gear distributed over your body, it ain't particularly easy. Hell, I would say 60 lbs is a light load by my standards... I've rucked 6 miles with about 100 pounds over flat terrain and by the end of it my feet were bleeding and I could barely walk, though that might not be a common load to bear... >.>
Anyway, I agree with her, I mean, I'm all for integration, but IF and ONLY IF, women are required to meet the same physical cut-offs, etc. as their male coutnerparts. No seperate scales, this is the military and we want the best of the best, and if you want equal opportunity, you need to meet equal standards. A military unit is a team, its like a chain, allowing women who are held to lower standards on a seperate scale introduces weak links into that chain, and when there are weak links then the chain begins to fail.I don't want no weak links in my military.
If ladies can pass the same test with the same results they should be in. It's possible for a nonbiased, fair test to produce sexist results without actually being sexist; and our leadership - emphasis on leader - need to accept that and educate their constituents. Because of basic genetics we won't ever be able to hit 50/50 but that doesn't mean we should arbitrarily draw the line at 0/100 either.
Bring on the infantrypeople (snicker). All the counterarguments are the same tired sexist bs we've been hearing for the last 100 years, and it's as foolish now as it was then; moreso in the face of elite units across the world that have absolutely no problem putting on their big-boy pants and making it happen. There are a lot of adherents of "American Exceptionalism" up ins that appear to think the fact women in the army get raped at a higher rate then in the general population, then oh well, guess we can't fix that problem! C'mon, guys. Don't make arguments like this with a straight face, it cheapens us all.
Women are already serving in the military, they are already dying in combat, lets start actually trying to be exceptional and respecting their sacrifices.
mattyrm wrote:I agree with seb, if they meet the requirements sure i think they should be able to serve.
Yeah, I agree with this as well.
That said, I think the standards should be maintained at their current level. Lowering the standards so that we can feel good about gender ratios in the infantry doesn't seem like a great idea.
LordofHats wrote:
Melissia wrote:Badly fitting uniforms and armor have been identified as one of the primary causes for long-risk of injury for female soldiers, for example.
Nothing says 'better' like a form fitting armored suit with an arm cannon
Ouze the point is, they DONT pass the same tests.. They never do!
Of course nobody would have a problem if they passed the same tests, the point is, they don't.
I have done some research.. Have you seen the state of the USMC physical tests!?
And still they run different requirements for women. It is pathetically easy, and still its easier for girls. Men have to do a paltry three pull ups? OK, girls just have to hang off the bar for a minute.
The only decent test is the SEALs one, and I'm 32 now and i could still pass it. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not sexist, I'm just a green beret and therefore an arrogant elitist prick!
Combat units should have tougher requirements for men as well! Make them tougher, and and then if women want to serve in combat units, they need to quit with all that seperate gak and muck in together.
My point really is this. I respect and admire anyone who serves, be they a remf or a pilot or a fighter. At least they pitch in! Why do girls need to be infantry? They can do almost everything and do their part. Isn't that enough?
I thought macho nonsense was just men, which is why every guy I ever meet in the rear echelons talks about how bas ass they are.. But clearly that idiocy isn't restricted to us guys eh!?
Girls.. You are wonderful, you are smart, but you are weaker. Just accept it, and do your part by being a pilot or joining the intelligence corps or something.
You really don't want a form fitting uniform when a flash fire happens. As for the body armor mine is stilled geared up for combat and it is not 60lbs. DCM/mod would let me I take pics and post it on here so everyone can be on the same sheet of music for a couple hours
I would prefer if females do not get sent for front line duties. If they do get sent seperate the squads by gender and sexuality. Yes, it is predudice but segmenting is the best thing to do.
Never happen. There is no segregation in the US military. Eisenhower made sure of that. The first batch is female officers which in turn would lead to command a line platoon. Which the platoon will either break her or shape her. SHe has to set the standard in fact she has to exceed the standard. Because the platoon will exceed the standard to break her. Example the platoon can do their 12 mile ruck in under 2 hours and 30 mins in full combat load. She barely makes it in under 3 hrs. We now have a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: battery to camera charging
Who said CBA was 60lbs? I know weights pretty well from training in kit, and body armor is feth all like 60.
My webbing with 6 full magazine's and 2 litres of water was 22lbs. So feth knows exactly.. But i reckon CBA weighs about what.. 12lbs?
Whatever.. When you're wandering around a Fob in nothing but CBA it feels like feth all anyway. I think people just exagerate.. How many times have you met a fether in the airforce or something who goes "oh yeah we were marching in Afghanistan with like... 180lb rucks on dude! "
Your CBA is different from our IOTV Matty. Besides Matty people are thinking just the vest alone and not with everything that you take with you out the wire. Also when I post the pics of my vest you get a kick out of the velcro patch I have on it.
Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs
Loaded M4 is 7 lbs
UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs
9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded
I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs
Camelback filled with water 4 lbs
The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS
IFAK under a pound
Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window
ACH helmet over 3 LBS
PRC commo device under a pound
so far 65 lbs
Bipod on the M4
ACOG
Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire
Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B
Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far
We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)
So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.
Melissia wrote:Instead of throwing up her hands and giving up pathetically, she should come up with solutions.
Like bionic implants so that she can compete physically with her male counterparts?
I was thinking of something more mundane. Like better designed equipment and training.
Badly fitting uniforms and armor have been identified as one of the primary causes for long-risk of injury for female soldiers, for example.
Melissia, Melissia, Melissia. Unless the women can meet the same physical requirements as the men, in the same gear, with the same training, then they can go back to being secretaries, making sandwiches, and farting out beautiful, screaming children.
Jihadin wrote:You really don't want a form fitting uniform when a flash fire happens. As for the body armor mine is stilled geared up for combat and it is not 60lbs. DCM/mod would let me I take pics and post it on here so everyone can be on the same sheet of music for a couple hours
You are most certainly correct. Even if just for simple ballistic reasons-- body armor that is curved inwards channels the bullet towards your center of mass, basically making it easier to die rather than harder.
But even ignoring the simple ballistics, there's also functional issues. For example, flight suits for women do not allow women to urinate in flight like they do men, and one of the most requested redesigns is to make the zipper go further down to allow for women to go without taking their suit part of hte way off.
Flightsuits are ACU design like the ACU uniform except its made out of nomex. Also a female crewchief in a combat theater is rare due to the possibilityof the aircraft itself can be shot down in an unsecure area.
I served 4 years as an 0351 Anti-Tank/Assault U.S. Marine Corps grunt. Yes there are more than one form of Marine Grunt. Mine came pre-loaded with your standard grunt 782 gear. Don't know anyone of us that carried just 2 liters of water. I carried four qts on my asspack and the same in a bladder on my back. We carried 15 magazines of ammo, I got a special present of a grenade vest to go along with my M203. Yes I'm dating myself. Pot and Vest, a case of MRE's field stripped, all the incidentals, adds up to what? Who cares. A Marine does not fight naked. Basic combat load is just that, a grunts SKIN. If you can't function with that at max capacity you are utterly useless to everyone in your squad, your platoon, your company and battalion.
On top of my basic load, my so called specialised MOS gifted me with a standard issue of two 20lb sachel charges of C4, 100ft of det cord, blasting caps, and demo bag. Doesn't matter how much it weighed, it all exploded. On top of this I carried my own Day Tracker and its attendent Dragon round. My A gunner carried yet another round and our Night Tracker. Each round cashed in at roughly 30 pounds, day tracker at 10, night tracker at 30. A-gunner carried a 16, but he also had to carry rounds for our squads M60. That matched out my 203. So we were both equally miserable. Adds up to what? Who cares. We didn't fight naked. We were expected to carry this weight over great distances in training, and even longer during combat. I'm a gulf war vet, so I guess I focus on the carrying part the most. Never had to go through most of what the current generation has had to. My cover is off to them.
Do I think women are capable of doing the job I did? I'm sure some women could. Most men could never do the basic job of Marine Corps Infantrymen, that is arriving at the point of contact with their basic load, capable of fighting for the duration. Then locating, closing with and destroying the enemy. You know all that Ooorah Oorah Jarhead stuff. Most men can't be a Marine Infantrymen. I'll leave it to all the feminists to decide if their often much younger female coutnerparts should undergo the experience to further their crusade. I'm sure the flat feet will cure these young women of ever wearing those cute sexy little shoes the often older feminists seem to hate so much. You women want my job? You're welcome to it. Good luck. Have a jolly old time, keep your powder and feet dry, your dick hard and just a bit too much hate in your heart. You're gonna need it, the world hates a Grunt. Best to hate it right back.
While you're at it. Make sure all those young women turning 18 head down to the Post Office to register for the draft. Yes, selective service, which may seem a cliche. America only drafts servicemen when things are really bad right? Well if women want equal rights. By all means, give them equal rights. America's fresh crop of 18 year old males aren't given the right to serve in the infantry. They actually have the DUTY of doing so. It may seem unlikely, a remote possibility, but its there, I turned 18 in boot camp, and actually got a few letters sent to me while I was in the Marines threatening me with legal action for NOT REGISTERING. If you don't register you can be prosecuted for it. So if women are equal and want to be Grunts. They have to sign the little card as well.
While we're being idiotic, lets take a look at what that might get us. Women make up what, roughly 52% of the U.S. Population? Being equal, they should then make up about the same percentage of any pool of draftees right? Again with the interest of being equal, they should receive just the same percentage to all those units commonly filled up by draftees. Rare in the Marine Corps, but lets say then that 52% of the draftees sent to the infantry are your average straight out of highschool, still smelling of Prom dresses, all American girls. I'm sure there are some women out there who CAN do what the average USMC Grunt is asked to do again and again. I'm 100 times more sure that there are a lot of women out there who can't wait for some OTHER woman to go there and do those things all to prove some feminist point.
Sad to say that an actual woman who got close to the real thing came back from the experience and had the courage to say something they didn't like about something that the feminists had never done, experienced, or ever faced being forced to participate in. Israeli women do it right? Do we honestly think that your average 18 yr old U.S. female matches up to their Israeli counterparts who live no more than 20-30 miles from a bunch of folks that want to repeat the holocaust? I'm willing to guess that the Taylor Swift and Katy Perry fans of the U.S. don't have a clue what it is to be an Israeli woman.
But again, I say lets give the feminists in the U.S. exactly what they and all the mush head feminsts around the world want. Lets make this generation of girls try to live up to the legacy of the Marines who fought at Peleliu. Half the squad will be filled up with women, so that removes any insane 'need' of a male Marine to go out and save her. Her BFF can try and do it. We can sit back and watch the crazy roll by as CNN shows us pictures of these young Prom queens and cheerleaders who've had their bodies and lives torn apart. Lets by all means finally equalize all the injustices against women and just make them completely equal. DRAFT THEM!!!
Jihadin wrote:I used to crew. There is no "need". Its always "do". No exception
I assume crews have needs in order to do...
I mean, if you decided that crews could only use their hands for everything and weren't allowed tools for anything there would be some problems...
dracpanzer wrote:America's fresh crop of 18 year old males aren't given the right to serve in the infantry. They actually have the DUTY of doing so.
No, we have the duty to serve in the military if so called, but the military isn't just the infantry.
dracpanzer wrote:
While we're being idiotic, lets take a look at what that might get us. Women make up what, roughly 52% of the U.S. Population? Being equal, they should then make up about the same percentage of any pool of draftees right?
Wrong. Have you heard the phrase "able-bodied" before?
dracpanzer wrote:
Do we honestly think that your average 18 yr old U.S. female matches up to their Israeli counterparts who live no more than 20-30 miles from a bunch of folks that want to repeat the holocaust? I'm willing to guess that the Taylor Swift and Katy Perry fans of the U.S. don't have a clue what it is to be an Israeli woman.
I'm willing to bet there are some female Israeli soldiers that would have your misogynistic head on a pike.
dracpanzer wrote:
Fair is Fair, right?
Your post is an example of why the educated deal with policy.
dracpanzer wrote:About four paragraphs of good stuff, then stuff that went progressively downhill and started sabotaging his own points.
Most military roles aren't infantry grunts. Many women serve, and I'm sure most of them consider themselves feminists, as they would like to be treated as equal human beings. Now, being morally and lawfully equal doen't mean we all have the same abilities and talents, of course. An efficient military uses people in the roles they're best suited to.
@Purple a crewchief is issued a toolbox. If he "need" something bigger then he can go to the tool room and sign it out. All he has to "do" is walk back to the hanger.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Best one so far on a "need" is "Hey I need a headspace and timing gauge to get this 50 up.....seriously? Here's my set of dog tags and get yours out to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and Drac....while you were a Dragon team member...wasn't there a peice from the system you can put in your pocket? The radiated piece?
Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs
Loaded M4 is 7 lbs
UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs
9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded
I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs
Camelback filled with water 4 lbs
The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS
IFAK under a pound
Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window
ACH helmet over 3 LBS
PRC commo device under a pound
so far 65 lbs
Bipod on the M4
ACOG
Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire
Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B
J
Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far
We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)
So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.
Even Etools were brought
Come now, it's been stated by one person on this thread that it's no trick at all to hump that gak at speed over several miles of rough terrain, up and down hills and mountains in extreme weather. He says you just have to even the load out! After about 10-20 miles of that I bet he could then strip naked in preparation for a spot of Mountain Lion wrestling with his bare hands!
mattyrm wrote:Ouze the point is, they DONT pass the same tests.. They never do!
I've said for years that military physical standards should be based on the requirements of the MOS, and nothing else.
Yes. I know Matty is aware of gender-norming but possibly not aware that our Congress insisted on that - that's why I mentioned the part about leadership. This isn't a military issue, it's a congressional leadership issue. They need to put on their big boy pants and explain that there is nothing sexist about a MOS with a small percentage of females. Explaining things to constituents is hard but, you know, they should try.
This cuts both ways, of course; rather then it being hard to get women onto subs biologically speaking it should mostly be women on subs. Smaller, use less oxygen, work better in groups...
mattyrm wrote:Ouze the point is, they DONT pass the same tests.. They never do!
I've said for years that military physical standards should be based on the requirements of the MOS, and nothing else.
Yes. I know Matty is aware of gender-norming but possibly not aware that our Congress insisted on that - that's why I mentioned the part about leadership. This isn't a military issue, it's a congressional leadership issue. They need to put on their big boy pants and explain that there is nothing sexist about a MOS with a small percentage of females. Explaining things to constituents is hard but, you know, they should try.
This cuts both ways, of course; rather then it being hard to get women onto subs biologically speaking it should mostly be women on subs. Smaller, use less oxygen, work better in groups...
You sir, are a lucky man. Because if you think women work better in groups you have never been subjected to the horror of Real Housewives.
Bromsy wrote:You sir, are a lucky man. Because if you think women work better in groups you have never been subjected to the horror of Real Housewives.
Well, reality show stars might not be the best picks for most military jobs, regardless of what it is. And teams of all women do poorly as well - a mixed team of majority women would probably produce the best results, especially with a rigid hierarchy (which any military unit already has).
Jihadin wrote:A sub with a good portion of the crew is female....imagine replacing the bulbs with UV light bulbs....
My old command was the USS Ohio, first sub to have female crew on board. Started with 1 female LT, don't know where its at now as far as percentage of the normally 150 folks on board. I know in the Navy having females in the surface fleet caused a lot of high school type drama amongst grown men. It was a huge deal among submariners to have females because we are all crazy superstitious.
I got out a few years ago so I have no clue how it is on board now, but from what I saw on the surface ships I visited it was the down time, no pun intended, that screwed everything, again no pun etc., up.
When I was stationed in Groton, CT, I watched a chief go to mast and get knocked down to e-4 for sleeping with a e-3 female who worked at the clinic.
I don't think I would have an issue with a front line female grunt, as long as she can handle the physical/mental aspect of the job, but its what happens when your not on the front line and everyone's bored that can really mess things up.
So the fact she's not up to par with infantry requirements mean all women are? She may have been a good 'athlete' but that doesn't mean she ever developed the strength or endurance necessary to perform as a rifleman.
I'd guess less than one in four men are capable of serving in the infantry, the number of women capable of doing so is going to be a lot lower.
Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs
Loaded M4 is 7 lbs
UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs
9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded
I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs
Camelback filled with water 4 lbs
The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS
IFAK under a pound
Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window
ACH helmet over 3 LBS
PRC commo device under a pound
so far 65 lbs
Bipod on the M4
ACOG
Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire
Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B
Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far
We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)
So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.
That article isn't anything particularly new. There are civilian and military men and women who think women don't belong, and there are civilian and military men and women who think they do. The only things that are, sometimes at least, interesting are the arguments they wield, and where they supposedly got them from.
mattyrm wrote:Ouze the point is, they DONT pass the same tests.. They never do!
Because they aren't even given the chance to do so. I'm a fervent believer in the need to abolish this gak about easier tests as it only hands more ammunition to the mysoginists.
Equality means that gender shouldn't play a role, and this goes doubly so for the military. Either a person fulfills all the requirements for the job, or he/she doesn't. Being a man or a woman (or even transgender) has nothing to do with it, and if fewer or even no women pass the test that's still good as long as those that do are at last regarded as equals. And I really do not believe that the US' basic infantry qualification is that impossible to achieve if females were graded the same as males, as my own unit was guarding a US Army base whose troops (1st Division Mechanized) were in the process of being deployed to Iraq, and I've seen quite a few fatties in it.
I know that the German KSK still has no female Commandos due to the high (and equal) requirements, but at least they can apply.
Female infantry have become less and less a rarity all around the world lately, from South Korean special forces to European and Australian militaries up to, of course, Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.
And maybe this mental barrier will be broken as well, just like female pilots are now accepted, and like female nurses had to become accepted some time ago, and non-white soldiers some time before that. Many societies are just very traditional, so it takes them longer to adapt to new ideas (see also: stance towards universal healthcare, etc).
Ouze wrote:This cuts both ways, of course; rather then it being hard to get women onto subs biologically speaking it should mostly be women on subs. Smaller, use less oxygen, work better in groups...
And fighter jets. The female body is, on average, better suited to endure G-stress as the blood has a shorter distance to travel to get from the heart to the brain, which means a smaller risk for a blackouts.
You know, this is the only thread I can think of where jihadin hasn't tried to make the topic mean the USA was doomed in the near future.
Relapse wrote:They point out there's data from other countries, but say the Marines are different.
Marines also tried to claim they were different and unique in showing the most opposition to DADT. When it was pointed out homosexual troops were serving without incident in other armed forces, they replied with exactly the same thing 'no, we're different because of really vaguely implied things. Ooo-rah!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:@Shuma,
You mentioned that they shouldn't let in skinny dudes if the y don't allow women. They don't induct or keep people that don't meet the physical standards.
Which is the point. Gender blind recruitment would say if you meet the physical and personality requirement you're in, regardless of gender.
People instead are arguing that even if a woman could meet the requirements they don't get in, because of hygiene and also because a sniper might shoot one in the leg, at which point the chivalrous nature of all the men folk means they'd rush madly to her rescue and all get killed, or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I agree with seb, if they meet the requirements sure i think they should be able to serve.
The point is, the requirements are ALWAYS easier because women are fething puny.
So I guess I agree with her too.
Well the point is don't make the requirements easier for women. If they meet the standards expected of male marines they're in, if they don't they're not.
If people had come in here and argued that women should have to make the same requirements as men, then I think most people would agree with them. The problem is that instead we're getting nonsense about men dying to save their wounded female friend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Girls.. You are wonderful, you are smart, but you are weaker. Just accept it, and do your part by being a pilot or joining the intelligence corps or something.
But while woman on the whole are weaker and smaller, there is considerable variation. Not enough variation that a woman could ever compete with the most elite men (so you'll never see the women's 100m WR time near the men's) but we're talking about the marines here - despite the rhetoric it is a general combat arm, with standards about equal to any developed nations. Elite women can meet those standards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:So the fact she's not up to par with infantry requirements mean all women are? She may have been a good 'athlete' but that doesn't mean she ever developed the strength or endurance necessary to perform as a rifleman.
I'd guess less than one in four men are capable of serving in the infantry, the number of women capable of doing so is going to be a lot lower.
Which doesn't mean, of course, that they don't exist. Point is when they are capable, and willing to serve, you let them.
Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.
Amaya wrote:Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.
No you didn't. I'm just saying the article quoted in the OP is making the argument that no woman should serve, and a few posters have tried to support that argument. Whereas I think everyone disagreeing with that point is very much of the 'if they can meet the requirements let them serve' mindset.
And yeah, I'd agree not that many women would have what it takes to be a rifleman (not on the willpower front, just on the physical ability side). Moving that standard to a more elite requirement, like Special Forces, I'd expect most women would drop off, to the point where there would be very few capable of making the grade.
Amaya wrote:Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.
very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.
Melissia wrote:
very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.
Haha. I wouldn't doubt that using the fact that modern men are lazy and do feth all exercise.
This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason, guys who work for insurance companies can run a 4 minute mile, and the bloke who works in a FLGS in San Bernadino once dragon-punched an armed gang banger so hard he landed on the roof of the Deli two blocks away.
Oh and the Queen knocked on my door last week and asked if she could use the toilet. She was with Sting and Lord Lucan.
Melissia wrote:
very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.
Haha. I wouldn't doubt that using the fact that modern men are lazy and do feth all exercise.
This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason, guys who work for insurance companies can run a 4 minute mile, and the bloke who works in a FLGS in San Bernadino once dragon-punched an armed gang banger so hard he landed on the roof of the Deli two blocks away.
Oh and the Queen knocked on my door last week and asked if she could use the toilet. She was with Sting and Lord Lucan.
Yes there is a lot of exageration no the internet. Fortunately the awesome of 10,000 - 20,000 strong herds of attack wiener dogs is absolutely true. I remember seeing a wiener legion track a herd of jackalopes for 20 miles one time. It was epic.
mattyrm wrote: This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason
Perhaps it's just me remembering relatives telling stories from vietnam/korea, but I recall that overly heavy packs are often the sign of a green recruit rather than an experienced veteran.
Training and combat are two different arena's. Standard for a 12 miler is under three hours with a 45 lbs ruck, weapon and ACH. Now its up to the uit commander/1st SGT to add to it. Body armor due to the "Train as you would fight" standard mentality.
mattyrm wrote: This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason
Perhaps it's just me remembering relatives telling stories from vietnam/korea, but I recall that overly heavy packs are often the sign of a green recruit rather than an experienced veteran.
Aye, basically people tell alot of porkies. Soldiers always say "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" and this is true, considering the tip of the spear (SF and top tier infantry) make up about 3% of the armed forces, but whenever you meet a soldier/sailor/airman/bugle boy in a bar they are the ultimate bad ass.
The maximum I have ever had on my back is about 105. That was a night time insertion into Iraq with no idea exactly when we were getting a resupply, so it was mainly water and rats, a few hundred round of link for the MG, couple of greenies, a sleeping bag and a gak load more ammunition. You figure water and ammo are the most important things cos you can stretch your rats out if you really need to.
When we got started we realised that 95% of the Iraqi army had wrapped their tits in and went home... and I wished I had swapped 300 rounds for some more black bean burritos.
Anyway, the point is you cant run with 105lbs on. You cant fire and manoeuvre either, it doesnt matter how fit you are. And if you are pretty skinny you need a hand actually getting it onto your back in the first place! You just bend over, stick your thumb up your fething arse and march for miles whilst spitting curses and pissing with sweat, sure you could probably yomp it about 80 miles over a few days if you really had to. But it hardly ever happens anymore. Not since they invented helicopters. So when people say they have done it they are talking gak.
As for training, they would risk injuring grunts by making them march 50 miles with full kit on, so they are full of gak as well. On SF selection the longest one dayer you do is 26 miles. So why the feth would grunts in gakky things like the Air Force be doing it!?
Basically take military talk with a pinch of salt. But I'm OT, all I was trying to say was that I think chicks should be allowed to serve if they do the exact same stuff, but its hard enough for a man in a decent unit, so don't expect many ladies to make the grade.
And that's a good thing, ladies are pretty. If even ten percent of them could do it, then the whole world would be rammed with girls who look like they went bobbing for apples in the deep frier at Macdonalds.
It serves its purpose though, because in ten years and six deployments I never once said "This is even harder than selection.." which is the whole point.
I tend not to glamorize my experience in the service either, I stood early warning radar and worked comms, my story would go something like this:
"So there I was sitting at my station when all of a sudden I get a radar sig from a Chinese freighter some hundred miles away!"
Audience: "What did you do!?"
"I notified the conn and logged it."
Audience: "Gasp!"
Although it was kinda fun when our Cold War era early warning radar would classify a trawlers short range radar somewhere in the Straight of Juan De Fuca as a Russian Acula Class sub... you couldnt use the auto classify function because it was so biased towards Russian equipment, and you would be recommending emergency deep every 5 min.
More people are amazed that a 6'3", 230lbd guy like myself served on submarines than anything, although I will say the first time we came out of drydock and did "angles and dangles" (45 degree up, 35 degree down, full right rudder, full left rudder for about 2 days in hour on, hour off increments) and went to test depth with bucket brigades to check for leaks was pretty fun
I want to see Matty vs. Melissia, steel-cage deathmatch, winner gets Texas. That should settle whether women are strong enough serve, once and for all.
Yeah of course, well, I suppose most people the right side of 30 don't eh? Its just kids stuff.
Who gives a gak anyway? I don't have scorn for people in the rear echelons at all, all links in the chain are equally important, and anyone with a brain knows it. Your fethed if you don't get your ammo storemen or your truck drivers to bring you your bullets and beans. I only have scorn for people that tell ridiculous lies even though they are speaking to someone in the military.. some of the gak I have heard over the years beggars belief.
A bloke in a pub once told me he was in 41 commando.. and, well, I don't and didn't know off the top of my head, but they got disbanded long before I ever joined up. Maybe in the 70s or something? So I called him on it and asked him his PO number, at which point he said he forgot it, and then he accused ME of not being RM because I didn't know who "Tom White" was.
And then he tried to headbutt me... ahh.. memories.
Melissia wrote:Wha? I like Matty, I wouldn't want to fight him... nevermind that he'[d probably kill me a few times before I hit the ground.
I'm not so tough really.. people think I am thanks to my qualifications, but physical fitness, stubborness and a rub of good luck earn you green berets, but they don't make you a fist fighter.
I'm fit but I'm a shade under 5 foot 9. If your tall you could put your hand on my skull and then boot me in the bollocks at arms length like your fighting a midget.
mattyrm wrote:
I'm not so tough really.. people think I am thanks to my qualifications, but physical fitness, stubborness and a rub of good luck earn you green berets, but they don't make you a fist fighter.
I'm fit but I'm a shade under 5 foot 9. If your tall you could put your hand on my skull and then boot me in the bollocks at arms length like your fighting a midget.
Matty woldn't go for a shotgun. Not enough rounds in it....well...maybe...if it was beanbags...it does look like a superhero punched someone on impact.
Nothing...just a snap of his fingers and females oogling over him magicaly appears.
Serious note however. The one thing blocking females in the US ARMY from serving in a combat line unit is Sexual Harrassment and Sexual Assualt risk at the platoon level.
Lynata wrote:
Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.
Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny. We just happen to live in times where technology and proper nutrition can level the playing field.
This is also why I find anti - gun feminists hilarious.
Lynata wrote:
Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.
Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny. We just happen to live in times where technology and proper nutrition can level the playing field.
This is also why I find anti - gun feminists hilarious.
Just about any weapon with greater reach than a knife, save perhaps high draw weight bows largely negate the advantage provided by a difference in upper body strength between the combatants. A spear doesn't kill you because the person on the other end is strong, it kills you because sharp metal punches through soft fleshy people like a hot knife through butter. Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.
Then as today what really matters is the ability to keep up with pace of the war, and having skill with the weapon. Hell even the "Skill" part of it could be largely negotiable in some cases, with some types of engagements simply hinging on the soldiers ability to hold the pointy stick in the right direction and not run away.
Chongara wrote:Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.
It isn't about damage so much as speed and endurance. You also have to consider that, at least in medieval Europe, even bladed weapons were effectively bludgeons; which means the more power you can put behind an attack the better.
Actually, I think a woman who knew how to use a knife placed against a man with the same skills is probably about as close to even as you'll get, at least as melee weapons go.
What about reflexes in that scenario?
It's a given that men are significantly stronger than women (assuming training), I think endurance would be fairly close, but you also have to factor in speed and load. I don't know if there is any data supporting one gender having superior reflexes to the other though.
Bromsy wrote:Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny.
These "valid, legitimate reasons" are that society thought a "good woman" needs to belong in the kitchen and raise children, and you know it.
Also, there actually was "a nation with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century". Have you ever heard of the Mino regiment? They seem to have fought pretty well.
There may be more examples throughout history if one were to look carefully. I'm not even committing much of an effort into investigating this stuff and I still stumble upon things that were new to me from time to time. Like last month, where I heard of that girl Claude des Armoises, who became captain of a mercenary company in medieval Europe. We actually only know of her because she also tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc, so her life's story was on some city's court records - else we would know nothing of a woman ever having been in such a role. How many more like her were there? How common were onna-bugeisha in Japanese warrior units? What about the stories of Viking shield maidens? There's so much still hidden behind the veil of the ages, somewhere between suppressed/forgotten knowledge and sheer exaggeration or folklore.
It didn't help public perception much that the nations of the world kept disbanding their units of female fighters when they weren't needed anymore, regardless of their actual performance in battle. And who even learns about them in school? Ask any person on the street if there were ever such a thing as female knights or female soldiers in medieval times and see what answer you'll get. People not being aware of the many exceptions from what we consider the rule is part of the problem; this, as well as the ongoing cultivation of an objectified image, creates a bias that will haunt society for generations to come. There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel - it just takes people some time to get used to women flocking into traditionally manly jobs, just like men are now flocking into traditionally womanly jobs. I think if you give it a few decades, people will look back at today's situation and scratch their heads at the illogical barriers in place, just like we today are looking back at stuff like black people not being allowed to sign up. It's a sad fact of life that humanity as a whole likes prejudice and dislikes change. Look at various contries in Europe who already had female combat infantry for decades.
Bromsy wrote:Okay, I'm on board with women who meet standards being allowed to do combat arms and all... but that is because they have guns. During the ages of muscle powered warfare, women were at an even greater disadvantage than now. There are valid, legitimate reasons why there are no nations with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century. It is not misogyny.
These "valid, legitimate reasons" are that society thought a "good woman" needs to belong in the kitchen and raise children, and you know it.
Also, there actually was "a nation with a proud and storied history of women bearing arms in line units going back century upon century". Have you ever heard of the Mino regiment? They seem to have fought pretty well.
There may be more examples throughout history if one were to look carefully. I'm not even committing much of an effort into investigating this stuff and I still stumble upon things that were new to me from time to time. Like last month, where I heard of that girl Claude des Armoises, who became captain of a mercenary company in medieval Europe. We actually only know of her because she also tried to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc, so her life's story was on some city's court records - else we would know nothing of a woman ever having been in such a role. How many more like her were there? How common were onna-bugeisha in Japanese warrior units? What about the stories of Viking shield maidens? There's so much still hidden behind the veil of the ages, somewhere between suppressed/forgotten knowledge and sheer exaggeration or folklore.
It didn't help public perception much that the nations of the world kept disbanding their units of female fighters when they weren't needed anymore, regardless of their actual performance in battle. And who even learns about them in school? Ask any person on the street if there were ever such a thing as female knights or female soldiers in medieval times and see what answer you'll get. People not being aware of the many exceptions from what we consider the rule is part of the problem; this, as well as the ongoing cultivation of an objectified image, creates a bias that will haunt society for generations to come. There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel - it just takes people some time to get used to women flocking into traditionally manly jobs, just like men are now flocking into traditionally womanly jobs. I think if you give it a few decades, people will look back at today's situation and scratch their heads at the illogical barriers in place, just like we today are looking back at stuff like black people not being allowed to sign up. It's a sad fact of life that humanity as a whole likes prejudice and dislikes change. Look at various contries in Europe who already had female combat infantry for decades.
That is all nice and dandy, but you did not really make any points as to why women should fight in the same combat roles as men. I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.
rubiksnoob wrote:That is all nice and dandy, but you did not really make any points as to why women should fight in the same combat roles as men.
Oh, the discussion is about that?
Well then, I believe "equality" is a good enough reason. If a woman fulfills the very same physical requirements demanded of a man in that certain role, why shouldn't she?
Might as well ask why men with black hair should fight in the same combat roles as men with blonde hair. Assignments such as these shouldn't focus on hair colour, eye, colour, skin colour, religion, sexual preferences, or gender - but on the one thing that matters: That person's physical capabilities. Anything else simply shouldn't play a role. Either you can do it or you can't, and until a given female recruit has taken these tests any claims like "that woman can't do it" are nothing more but mysoginist bias.
rubiksnoob wrote:I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.
This has nothing to do with biology but all with society. You said it yourself, "there will be exceptions", so why bar these from service?
This barrier is about as arbitrary as the now-defunct one about skin colours. Humanity has always been prone to segregating certain groups of people into lower classes so that the upper classes can feel superior. If women wouldn't exist, people would now probably go around claiming that men with a certain body height are, on average, better suited to combat, and campaign that guys shorter than 1.70m should be exempt from infantry MOS.
Look, it's real easy. If you truly believe that women are so massively hindered by their biology, just open up the tests on equal levels and let them filter themselves out. I put forward the claim that any reluctance to this is simple fear that more women might pass than you'd like to believe. For some people, that number might even be zero. It's a barrier that other nations have already broken, and it is, I think, only a matter of time until the US (hopefully) follows suit.
Oh and by the way, women are - on average - also better suited than men for the role of attack fighter pilots, because of biology. Guess we should bar all men from this job then.
Okay, point out any serious offensive military that relied in any major part on female soldiers in a pre gunpowder era. You can't because it never, ever happened. A regiment here or there created for bodyguard or religious purposes does not matter, because they never determined anything except a historical footnote.
Once again, I am all for women who can lug a ruck alongside a guy and match him for accuracy.
But deluding ourselves to think that the desire for men to have a subservient class to make sandwiches for us is the only thing that relegated women to a second fiddle role historically is just bogus. Especially when you are talking military history. Men can do more with less, when you are talking calories to muscle building. That is just the way it works.
When it comes to pointing an M4 at commies and pulling the trigger, the 6.9 pounds that that rifle and it's magazine weighs isn't all that crazy a difference taking women and men into account.
When you have to carry a 12 pound sarissa at a precise angle for eight hours, it starts to add up. And that is a pike that you basically just point at the enemy and walk. When you start getting into melee combat, say swinging a six odd pound sword around while lugging around armor... If you can't understand the difference between that and firing a rifle, then you need to go grab a hefty chunk of wood and swing it around for a bit.
Then you have the fun field of archery - the lowest draw weights estimated for British longbows are around 80 lbs - which is pretty goddamned tough, even for modern bowmen, and the estimates go as high as 185 lbs draws which is frankly ridiculous for all but the strongest or best trained men, and pretty much impossible for women of the time.
Chongara wrote:Contrary to what D&D would lead people to believe any sharp length of metal is going to do about the same damage in the hands of a noodle-armed whimp as it would wielded by an '80s Arnold type strong man.
It isn't about damage so much as speed and endurance. You also have to consider that, at least in medieval Europe, even bladed weapons were effectively bludgeons; which means the more power you can put behind an attack the better.
Actually, I think a woman who knew how to use a knife placed against a man with the same skills is probably about as close to even as you'll get, at least as melee weapons go.
Well I was kind of grouping in "Speed" as a part of "Skill" there, fair point. However those aren't really things that are differentiated strongly by sex so point remains, even ancient warfare isn't dominated by upper body strength being "muscle powered" as the poster I was quoting I was saying. I also wasn't really limiting things to medieval Europe (but again, fair game given my D&D reference), really any period you may be conducting warfare by stuffing some variety of sharp metal, wood, stone and/or bone into someone to do damage really counts.
As for knife fights, I suspect that like in fist fights reach is going to play a big role (any knife fight experts wannna confirm/deny) and with such a small weapon that's going to come down to who has the longer arms, typically the bigger person. Of course first strike wins too, so it's more about getting the drop on someone and less about it being an actual "Fight"... but now I'm drifting way, way, way off topic.
Bromsy wrote:Okay, point out any serious offensive military that relied in any major part on female soldiers in a pre gunpowder era. You can't because it never, ever happened. A regiment here or there created for bodyguard or religious purposes does not matter, because they never determined anything except a historical footnote.
Have you read the entire article? That regiment ended up forming 1/3 of the entire Dahomey army. Just because its original role was a small bodyguard does not change that fact. That'd be like claiming the current UK Army's Grenadier Guards "doesn't count" because it was originally raised as a bodyguard for King Charles II.
Bromsy wrote:But deluding ourselves to think that the desire for men to have a subservient class to make sandwiches for us is the only thing that relegated women to a second fiddle role historically is just bogus.
Eh, I'd say you are deluding yourself if you think that a widespread religion which propagated the role of women as being inherently inferior and the source of all sin had nothing to do with the suppression of females that have evidently shown they can fight. If what you claim would be true, they would never even have reached those positions in the first place.
Hell, one of the accusations levied against Jeanne d'Arc in her trial was that she had dared to wear a man's clothes. Gasp!
It's a fact that especially in medieval Europe there was an active suppression of female fighters going on, and I have provided examples in an earlier post.
Bromsy wrote:When you have to carry a 12 pound sarissa at a precise angle for eight hours, it starts to add up.
Considering that the sarissa wasn't all that popular outside ancient Greece, that's not exactly a good example. Other, lighter polearms were way more prominent in the battlefields of medieval Europe - and if you want to delve into ancient history, there are a load of accounts (and historical evidence in the form of various tombs) of women as archers and mounted archers. In fact, it is perhaps the latter which led to the amazon myth in the first place.
If we were to talk polearms, how about the naginata?
"The naginata was considered one of the weapons most suitable for women, since it allows a woman to keep opponents at a distance, where any advantages in height, weight, and upper body strength would be lessened. An excellent example of the role of women in Japanese society and martial culture is Itagaki, who, famous for her naginata skills, led the garrison of 3,000 warriors stationed at Toeizakayama castle. Ten thousand Hōjō clan warriors were dispatched to take the castle, and Itagaki led her troops out of the castle, killing a significant number of the attackers before being overpowered. The naginata saw its final uses in combat in 1868, at Aizu, and in 1876, in Satsuma."
Bromsy wrote:And that is a pike that you basically just point at the enemy and walk. When you start getting into melee combat, say swinging a six odd pound sword around while lugging around armor... If you can't understand the difference between that and firing a rifle, then you need to go grab a hefty chunk of wood and swing it around for a bit.
I actually happen to own an exhibition fight bastard sword. That's not to say that my own dabbling in this pastime is comparable to actual medieval warfare (and I haven't touched it in years) - just that I know the weight of a chainmail and weapon.
And just for the sake of raising awareness, the Royal Armouries National Museum of Arms and Armour happens to have a relatively well-preserved muster roll of a medieval draft - that of the town of Bridport in 1457. About 3% of the still-legible names on that list are women, and they were armed with swords and bows. Yeah, yeah, not much - still noteworthy, considering these were ordinary people and common perception still holds the idea that women in that day and age were not fighting at all.
Bromsy wrote:Then you have the fun field of archery - the lowest draw weights estimated for British longbows are around 80 lbs - which is pretty goddamned tough, even for modern bowmen, and the estimates go as high as 185 lbs draws which is frankly ridiculous for all but the strongest or best trained men, and pretty much impossible for women of the time.
As long as you realize that there were different types of longbows, and that the longbow was not the only weapon used for archery, I don't see the problem.
There's scores of historical accounts on female archers throughout the ages, not to mention the various graves where women were interred with such weaponry (thus presumably their belongings), or the sculptures and illustrations featuring them.
Now, this has little to do with the topic at hand ... but I feel if more people were aware that female soldiers isn't that new an idea, the resistance against it might be smaller. The way it is, however, this just isn't common knowledge. Fortunately, in this age of the internet, it is comparatively easy to look this up, but as long as we grow up being taught this false image, there will always be a tendency to a bias. Even with evidence, it's harder to change an existing opinion than to influence its original creation, after all.
But even if we assume that all these women in history were allowed to fight only to add to the numbers of all those allegedly superior male fighters - this is an argument to be made for the contemporary military as well, isn't it? I was under the impression that the US has difficulties recruiting troops, at least I vaguely recall reading an article about this. So there's also a choice to be made between a smaller army (and, with this, a reduced potential for global power projection) or one with gender equality.
Now, this has little to do with the topic at hand ... but I feel if more people were aware that female soldiers isn't that new an idea, the resistance against it might be smaller
That, and if people stopped trying to point an arbitrary line of masculinity versus femininity. The world doesn't work that way, and neither do we human beings.
rubiksnoob wrote:I believe the "valid, legitimate reasons" reasons that bromsy was referring to have more to do with the fact that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, on average, than women, and thus are better suited to combat. Sure, there will be exceptions, but as a rule, men are better fighters than women. You can rage all you like about society and prejudice and sexism, but you can't fight your biology.
This has nothing to do with biology but all with society. You said it yourself, "there will be exceptions", so why bar these from service?
This barrier is about as arbitrary as the now-defunct one about skin colours. Humanity has always been prone to segregating certain groups of people into lower classes so that the upper classes can feel superior. If women wouldn't exist, people would now probably go around claiming that men with a certain body height are, on average, better suited to combat, and campaign that guys shorter than 1.70m should be exempt from infantry MOS.
Look, it's real easy. If you truly believe that women are so massively hindered by their biology, just open up the tests on equal levels and let them filter themselves out. I put forward the claim that any reluctance to this is simple fear that more women might pass than you'd like to believe. For some people, that number might even be zero. It's a barrier that other nations have already broken, and it is, I think, only a matter of time until the US (hopefully) follows suit.
Oh and by the way, women are - on average - also better suited than men for the role of attack fighter pilots, because of biology. Guess we should bar all men from this job then.
Oh, please. I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve if they can meet the same standards of men. In fact, several times, in this thread and another, I've said that they should be allowed. I'm all for wimminz in the military. All I'm saying is that if they were held to the physical standards there would be way fewer women in the military than there are currently.
rubiksnoob wrote:Oh, please. I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve if they can meet the same standards of men. In fact, several times, in this thread and another, I've said that they should be allowed. I'm all for wimminz in the military. All I'm saying is that if they were held to the physical standards there would be way fewer women in the military than there are currently.
And I never said something like the average woman being as physically capable as the average man, did I?
I don't get your criticism, given that we are basically saying the same thing (with exception to the history bits). Fewer women in the military is actually good, if that means they would be accepted as equals. "Smuggling" female troops into the service by basically cheating with the requirements imposed on them only creates an air of double standards - something under which they will all suffer, even those who would easily manage to meet male standards.
Also, it is my understanding that the most pressing need for new troops is in frontline combat roles, where in the US they are currently still banned entirely. At least officially - meanwhile in reality, female soldiers end up fighting again and again, but this is conveniently ignored in favour of the bias.
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd).
*snip for length*
Not that everyone hasn't said this before, but I've seen the old 'wound one for bait' trick work without a woman involved at all.
Jihadin wrote:I just trashed a female and caused multiple casualties I also got the medic. I also got maybe 2-3 more troops wounded.
No, if you really want to feth up Marines, get into a low visibility situation, where it's dark and maybe got some fire going on, a marine body, and a frag. Yell 'corpsman!' and relocate. Used to get marines pretty regularly, and not a skirt involved. (And as old a trick as it is, you'd think they'd get wise to it after .... 50 years. But , no, I heard about some idiots falling for it in Iraq to this very day.)
Jihadin wrote:Matty woldn't go for a shotgun. Not enough rounds in it....well...maybe...if it was beanbags...it does look like a superhero punched someone on impact.
AA-12 with 32 round drum might fit the bill. (Personally, for short range work, I still prefer a Thompson, though. As long as you use jacketed rounds to avoid jams since leading is a bitch.)
dogma wrote:I'm willing to bet there are some female Israeli soldiers that would have your misogynistic head on a pike.
Agreed.
Personally, if anyone wants to be a footslogger, more power to em, and let em try it.
Personal opinion, women at the front would be better suited to armor, for pretty much the same reasons that one would think they'd be good in submarines (smaller build). A crew taht can more easilly get around thier tank is going to perform better, whatever genitalia they have.
Chongara wrote:
Well I was kind of grouping in "Speed" as a part of "Skill" there, fair point. However those aren't really things that are differentiated strongly by sex so point remains, even ancient warfare isn't dominated by upper body strength being "muscle powered" as the poster I was quoting I was saying.
Strength and speed pretty much go hand in hand, at least when you're moving a significant mass around (which may simply be your body).
A good comparison is bat speed in softball. You can see 85-90 in amateur men's, and the same in professional women's. For context, professional baseball players are usually 105-110.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Following that logic though, wouldn't it be the same? (A woman with decent strength has less mass to move, and therefor higher speed)
A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.
The distinction is entirely genetic. Men simply have a predisposition for building muscle (and mass in general), and are generally larger.
dogma wrote:
A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.
Not necessarily. You're conflating muscle strength with muscle hypertrophy. Oddly, increasing muscle 'mass' does not actually increase the number of muscle fibers present. This is why bodybuilders who are equally strong are not necessarily equally massive.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Not necessarily. You're conflating muscle strength with muscle hypertrophy.
Because they're basically the same thing.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Oddly, increasing muscle 'mass' does not actually increase the number of muscle fibers present. This is why bodybuilders who are equally strong are not necessarily equally massive.
No, that's wrong. The reason for variation in gross mass in people is either genetic, or composition; generally intramuscular fat.
When I use the word "mass" I mean "mass," not "size."
BaronIveagh wrote:
Following that logic though, wouldn't it be the same? (A woman with decent strength has less mass to move, and therefor higher speed)
A woman with decent strength also has more mass, muscle has mass. A woman can, theoretically, be just as strong and fast as a man (And there are examples.), its just that its harder for them to match the same marks.
The distinction is entirely genetic. Men simply have a predisposition for building muscle (and mass in general), and are generally larger.
Being a soldier I dont know the exact science behind it, cos its more practical knowledge as opposed to studying sports science or biology, but seriously... It is physically impossible for a woman of equal weight to be as strong as a man. I told you guys, a PTI once told me that if a man and a woman are the exact same height and weight, then the man will be 20% stronger.
Women really have a much tougher time than us, you cant fight your gender.
They had 4 women down at CTC for a trial when I was there, they really struggled with the strength work, things like log runs and rope climbs with kit on.
Women should be able to try out and if they pass the exact same tests as men then they should be in. But where as 1 men in 20 passes out of RM training, I reckon you would be looking at 1 woman in 200.
They can have the speed and the agility, but seriously.. top level stuff is difficult because you have to be good at everything. Some guys whiz through running and speed marching but struggle with yomping, some guys are great at yomping but struggle with heaves, some guys are particularly good at that, then they struggle with the 500 metre swim in kit, or the aerial stuff or what have you. The fact that nobody is ever good at EVERYTHING is why so many people fail to make the grade. You might be the fittest guy in the world, but you will struggle with something during that 32 weeks of gak. Getting to the top of that 30 foot rope gives most men pause, Its a free hanging 30 foot climb, and you have to get to the top before you are allowed to tackle the tarzan assault course.
I have always been good at the strength gak and less good at long loping runs being a powerfully built 5 foot 9, for example I can do a solid 20 chin ups, but I was literally blowing out of my arse getting to the top of the rope. Another 3 feet and I wouldn't have been able to get up the fether.. So, if certain things are based not on speed, or endurance, but on nothing at all but power, as some things inevitably are, then it will take a rare woman indeed to crack it.
Before we go into the top tier military units lets keep at the the basic level (infantry line unit) shall we. Matty right. Everyone is built different. I'm
dogma wrote:
Because they're basically the same thing.
Not exactly. There are other factors, including contractile length, tissue density, and so on.
mattyrm wrote:
Being a soldier I dont know the exact science behind it, cos its more practical knowledge as opposed to studying sports science or biology, but seriously... It is physically impossible for a woman of equal weight to be as strong as a man. I told you guys, a PTI once told me that if a man and a woman are the exact same height and weight, then the man will be 20% stronger.
Women really have a much tougher time than us, you cant fight your gender.
They had 4 women down at CTC for a trial when I was there, they really struggled with the strength work, things like log runs and rope climbs with kit on.
Women should be able to try out and if they pass the exact same tests as men then they should be in. But where as 1 men in 20 passes out of RM training, I reckon you would be looking at 1 woman in 200.
They can have the speed and the agility, but seriously.. top level stuff is difficult because you have to be good at everything. Some guys whiz through running and speed marching but struggle with yomping, some guys are great at yomping but struggle with heaves, some guys are particularly good at that, then they struggle with the 500 metre swim in kit, or the aerial stuff or what have you. The fact that nobody is ever good at EVERYTHING is why so many people fail to make the grade. You might be the fittest guy in the world, but you will struggle with something during that 32 weeks of gak. Getting to the top of that 30 foot rope gives most men pause, Its a free hanging 30 foot climb, and you have to get to the top before you are allowed to tackle the tarzan assault course.
I have always been good at the strength gak and less good at long loping runs being a powerfully built 5 foot 9, for example I can do a solid 20 chin ups, but I was literally blowing out of my arse getting to the top of the rope. Another 3 feet and I wouldn't have been able to get up the fether.. So, if certain things are based not on speed, or endurance, but on nothing at all but power, as some things inevitably are, then it will take a rare woman indeed to crack it.
I can't really base my argument around 'testing' or the training regimen, but frankly, historically, women have served with distinction in combat whenever they served, in approximate proportion to the men they served alongside.
Off the top of my head, Lidia Litvyak (fighter ace), Joan of Arc (officer), Roza Shanina (sniper), and Boadicea (Queen, and pain in the ass to the Roman Empire).
Sun Tzu, when challenged by the King of Wu was able to turn the Kings concubines into the most effective and disciplined soldiers in his army, according to legend.
Yes but Baron, we don't do things like that anymore! Past personalities are irrelevant. There was once a female Royal Marine called Hannah Snell, she joined up looking for her husband, and its a famous story now. But back in those days, she wouldn't have needed to spend 32 weeks getting beasted before she was allowed a rifle and sent onto a ship.
I mean, nobody is doubting women are just as intelligent, women can be better at men at anything OTHER than phsyical jaunts. Of course they are just as skilled intellectually when it comes to soldiering, so of course they can lead as well as men, but Boadicea and Roza Shanina never had to yomp up a mountain with 100lb rucks on before starting work!
I don't doubt Roza could shoot as well as any man, but would she have been able to pass an extremely demanding 16 week "physical training course" before she started shooting? gak, I bed Boadicea couldn't carry much, she was probably about 4 foot tall for starters!
Jihadin wrote:Example..only an example. I'm a insurgent sniper thats been around the block for awhile (few and far inbetween thank Gawd). Plying my trade in Afghanistan...after Ramadan...they're not turning down Ramadan at all but NATO forces diffently know when Ramadan is over. So feeling warm and fuzzy from 30 day vacation. I start observing ISAF forces conducting their foot sweeps. Notice females in the patrol and making a mental note. Pick the best location that affords me the best "unass" the AO. CLear field of fire. Deep enough into cover where my muzzle flash won't give me away. Wait....wait.....wait some more.....drink some water....wait wait wait...aahhhh here we go....take aim...and shoot the kneecap of a female thats in the open with very little cover.....shoot the medic coming in to save her dead..move to a secondary position in a span of 4 secs...shoot the female in the other kneecap...place my scope one foot above her...unit pop smoke to mask the attempt to get her...1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippe and put multiple rounds above her with a 1' to 1'6" spread. Bail out the area. Secure my weapon in a predisignated hiding spot. Go back to being a local farmer and observe my handiwork.
Now even though you read this it never occured to you. Since your maybe saying "BS" it'll never happen. Or I'm talking gak...maybe you think one of my BS paragrapth. Whats the male nature towards a female. Thats what I'm exploiting.
I know others have commented on it, but I'm not sure if anyone asked you outright:
How does this scenario play out in your head if the target was male, Jihadin? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just genuinely curious. Personally, I'm not sure how it would play out any differently.
Well. My first hand experience. Every new soldier coming into my platoon. Gets the crew served. Be it the 249 or 240. till I otherwise say so or till I feel a new gunner is needed (mostly to gain experience on a crew serve). Now granted I'm no longer line infantry Same applies there to. Everyone needs to know how to operate a crew serve incase "gun down" is ever shouted. So females or males gets the crew serve. If a female cannot handle the crew serve then I replace her with a male. I will even do it within verbally in the platoon same as I would a male. I treat them all as the same. If I cannot get the same performance then I relegate them out the platoon. I do not care. Mail room clerk, armour, driver for someone...whatever I can get them into and out of my area. As for on the spot correction. Its all the same. I will get my push ups because I'm just there to help them build a better mind and body. As for "female" drama in a platoon involving males or another female or male drama involving a female within the platoon. I crush it before it goes outside the platoon for somebody else gets involve in fixing my problem in my platoon. I ever mention I'm a EoA for my company?
mattyrm wrote:
I mean, nobody is doubting women are just as intelligent, women can be better at men at anything OTHER than phsyical jaunts. Of course they are just as skilled intellectually when it comes to soldiering, so of course they can lead as well as men, but Boadicea and Roza Shanina never had to yomp up a mountain with 100lb rucks on before starting work!
Joan of Arc, however, I notice you skipped, since fighting all day in full plate is more exhausting than anything footsloggers currently do. According to her CO, she was more reckless that way then any man under his command, as she did it with multiple wounds.
mattyrm wrote:
I don't doubt Roza could shoot as well as any man, but would she have been able to pass an extremely demanding 16 week "physical training course" before she started shooting? gak, I bed Boadicea couldn't carry much, she was probably about 4 foot tall for starters!
True, though, again, I question the reasoning behind it, since we axe it down to six weeks tops when a serious war arises and the draft kicks in. Which, I might point out, would be the point I'd want better soldiers, not weaker ones.
Did you know that it currently costs 60k plus dollars to train a single GI? Adjusted for inflation it cost 250 bucks in WWII. Are we seriously saying that our current system produces soldiers 240 times better than what we did then?
Did you know that it currently costs 60k plus dollars to train a single GI? Adjusted for inflation it cost 250 bucks in WWII. Are we seriously saying that our current system produces soldiers 240 times better than what we did then?
Tactics and military tech evolves. Also continue training. Advance training. Leadership training, MOS enhancement training, expanded mission training...well it a crapload of training
Jihadin wrote:Did you know that it currently costs 60k plus dollars to train a single GI? Adjusted for inflation it cost 250 bucks in WWII. Are we seriously saying that our current system produces soldiers 240 times better than what we did then?
Tactics and military tech evolves. Also continue training. Advance training. Leadership training, MOS enhancement training, expanded mission training...well it a crapload of training
, one has to amortize in the cost of the sharks with frigging lasers...
BaronIveagh wrote:
Joan of Arc, however, I notice you skipped, since fighting all day in full plate is more exhausting than anything footsloggers currently do. According to her CO, she was more reckless that way then any man under his command, as she did it with multiple wounds
I didnt skip her, I just picked two. The fact is, historical "facts" are wrong anyway, lets be honest. No doubt when a man rescues a relatively plain princess, she is a dazzling beauty 500 years down the line. I can guarantee you something though. Sports science and increased nutrition means that we have been onwards and upwards for the last 2000 years. A 4 minute mile was impressive 50 years ago, its easy beat now.
Joan of Arc did feth all more exhausting than anything I currently do. If she was alive today I would crush her utterly. I can run faster, carry more, and have a chin made of granite. Resurrect the bitch and I will kick her midget ass all the way back to France.
BaronIveagh wrote:
True, though, again, I question the reasoning behind it, since we axe it down to six weeks tops when a serious war arises and the draft kicks in. Which, I might point out, would be the point I'd want better soldiers, not weaker ones.
Did you know that it currently costs 60k plus dollars to train a single GI? Adjusted for inflation it cost 250 bucks in WWII. Are we seriously saying that our current system produces soldiers 240 times better than what we did then?
I did know that, your looking at 150k for SF guys too with all the specialist training. I don't think our system produces soldiers far better than we did then, but they are better. I think that due to the fact there are so many fat lazy fethers around nowadays, the fitness thing is probably less degraded, but the average soldier now will be far smarter than one from WW2. And particularly fit soldiers nowdays would smash the WW2 ones hands down. As I said, nutrition, training and sports science has come a long way in 60 years.
As I said, I'm not arguing with you on the topic, I think that women should be allowed in! I just think they should complete the exact same training.
I merely pointed out that pulling facts about chicks from history is hardly relevant to this discussion, and it isn't really is it?
mattyrm wrote: I mean, nobody is doubting women are just as intelligent, women can be better at men at anything OTHER than phsyical jaunts.
You're still generalizing. Maybe you didn't mean to, but from the way this sentence is formulated, it reads like no woman ever could beat any man ever at "physical jaunts". Which, carefully analyzed, is obviously a flawed argument.
Some men can be better than most women at task X. Some women can be better than most men at task Y.
Imagine there was a state in the US where the average male citizen would be notably less physically capable than the people from the other states. Would it be fair to bar them from certain roles based on this average, not even allowing them to take the tests? I'm rather sure that no sane person would even try to make this argument, but when it comes to women - which is the exact same issue when you think about it - then society suddenly struggles to contemplate the idea. The reason? Traditional belief, nothing more.
Humanity likes to segregate itself into neatly arranged classes; this is not a new problem in the military either: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwi/articles/fightingforrespect.aspx
mattyrm wrote:I think that women should be allowed in! I just think they should complete the exact same training.
mattyrm wrote: I mean, nobody is doubting women are just as intelligent, women can be better at men at anything OTHER than phsyical jaunts.
You're still generalizing. Maybe you didn't mean to, but from the way this sentence is formulated, it reads like no woman ever could beat any man ever at "physical jaunts". Which, carefully analyzed, is obviously a flawed argument.
Some men can be better than most women at task X. Some women can be better than most men at task Y.
Imagine there was a state in the US where the average male citizen would be notably less physically capable than the people from the other states. Would it be fair to bar them from certain roles based on this average, not even allowing them to take the tests? I'm rather sure that no sane person would even try to make this argument, but when it comes to women - which is the exact same issue when you think about it - then society suddenly struggles to contemplate the idea. The reason? Traditional belief, nothing more.
Humanity likes to segregate itself into neatly arranged classes; this is not a new problem in the military either: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwi/articles/fightingforrespect.aspx
Hey be aware that I have stated numerous times that I am all for women in the combat arms, as long as they pass the same tests, I haven't once said that I think they should be barred, merely that they do the same stuff, so we actually agree on the main issue.
I am aware my point sounds flawed, but it stands. If a man and a woman are the exact same height and weight, the man will ALWAYS be stronger because a higher percentage of their weight comes from muscle. That is a hard fact.
Some women are better than some men, but the point stands. If a training exercise comes down to nothing other than raw power, say lifting a 100lb log onto your shoulder and then carrying it for 6 miles, then a 150lb man is far more likely to complete it than a 150lb woman.
Oh, yeah. I just wanted to point out how arbitrary that is.
I'd wager that one could also say that a farm worker will ALWAYS be stronger than a man of the exact same height and weight who works in an office, simply because he's bound to be more fit.
Hell, I'm sure there are even studies about how specific phenotypes of men are genetically more inclined to develop more physically able bodies than others. Did anyone notice how the fastest runners in the Olympic Games most often seem to be black people?
All I'm saying is: feth any averages. You're going to hire a soldier, so test him/her like a soldier - not like a "man" or a "woman". Gender should be as irrevelant as skin colour, religion or sexual preferences. Any talk about "averages" is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Jihadin wrote:
Tactics and military tech evolves. Also continue training. Advance training. Leadership training, MOS enhancement training, expanded mission training...well it a crapload of training
Tactics and tech do evolve, though many people might be surprised how little some of them have (and some of that evolution is more of a regression in some cases). There are two old jokes that seem to come true time and time again: We're always ready to fight the last war, and we forget all the lessons from anything before that.
That said: while the average gopo is, over all, better trained and equipped then previously, we're definitely not 240 times better. So, the question is: how much of the training, requirements, etc, are a waste of time and money when we get down to it?
There's a fundamental problem any more in the US, in particular, that is pretty well summed up in Matty's 'we don't do stuff like that anymore' line of thinking. Currently we're focused on a highly trained, professional, smaller, more mobile multi-role concept for the military.
Historically, there's a big problem with this. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but last military to follow this route was the Nazis. I think we all remember what happened there (unless you're a sniper scout). Before that it was (broadly speaking) the Confederacy.
While many posters will immediately scream 'but we have overwhelming air power' the fact is that depending on this, single fact (which the majority of current military planning seems to revolve around) is a major Achilles heel in strategy, just as much as assuming that all future wars would be settled with atom bombs was post WWII. I know the navy positively falls down anymore without near absolute air superiority.
mattyrm wrote:
I didnt skip her, I just picked two. The fact is, historical "facts" are wrong anyway, lets be honest. No doubt when a man rescues a relatively plain princess, she is a dazzling beauty 500 years down the line. I can guarantee you something though. Sports science and increased nutrition means that we have been onwards and upwards for the last 2000 years. A 4 minute mile was impressive 50 years ago, its easy beat now.
Joan of Arc did feth all more exhausting than anything I currently do. If she was alive today I would crush her utterly. I can run faster, carry more, and have a chin made of granite. Resurrect the bitch and I will kick her midget ass all the way back to France.
You should try it some time. I've seen guys who passed hell week fall down and pass out. And, while, you have a point about legend, this was taken from the letters her CO (The Bastard of Orleans) wrote at the time. (since there were no such things as AARs back then. Fortunately, complaints and protests, however, still had to be written down and go up the chain of command. Joan was apparently far too cavalier about the safety of herself and her men, and John of Orleans was very unhappy to get her foisted off on him by the King. That and given the later trial, much of the documentation survived due to the Catholic church's inquest into the proceedings a few years later)
mattyrm wrote: And particularly fit soldiers nowdays would smash the WW2 ones hands down. As I said, nutrition, training and sports science has come a long way in 60 years.
On the nutrition thing.... we stole most of it at the end of WW2 from the Nazis. Much of what we know about nutrition and surviving extreme conditions was the direct result of German experimentation on prisoners and POWs. In fact, one of the dirty little open secrets of the US military, giving military personnel amphetamines, was pioneered by the Germans.
While I agree that per soldier, we are better, don't get me wrong, we're not THAT much better. I'd say it's a 4 to one in favor of the modern soldier, as long as environment is not a factor.
Keep with the current time frame. Not "Nam" its "Shock and Awe" Its also a false disclaimer saying we have the air power so we win. Can't win a war with air power alone. Boots on the ground is key to winning.
Well, the biggest difference in concept seems to be that the bombs are now delivering themselves.
That, and precision > carpet bombing.
I still think the basic sentiment applies, though. People who are screaming "air power!!" now also did so back then, and we all know what happened.
That said, I suppose environment plays a huge role in this, too, seeing as it's much harder to hide troop movements/positions in a desert than in a dense jungle.
And the actual definition of victory conditions, of course, or how far the opponent is willing to go, whether there's a chance he'd surrender if pounded enough etc.
Either way ... "boots on the ground", as you said.
Jihadin wrote:
Tactics and military tech evolves. Also continue training. Advance training. Leadership training, MOS enhancement training, expanded mission training...well it a crapload of training
Tactics and tech do evolve, though many people might be surprised how little some of them have (and some of that evolution is more of a regression in some cases). There are two old jokes that seem to come true time and time again: We're always ready to fight the last war, and we forget all the lessons from anything before that.
That said: while the average gopo is, over all, better trained and equipped then previously, we're definitely not 240 times better. So, the question is: how much of the training, requirements, etc, are a waste of time and money when we get down to it?
There's a fundamental problem any more in the US, in particular, that is pretty well summed up in Matty's 'we don't do stuff like that anymore' line of thinking. Currently we're focused on a highly trained, professional, smaller, more mobile multi-role concept for the military.
Historically, there's a big problem with this. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but last military to follow this route was the Nazis. I think we all remember what happened there (unless you're a sniper scout). Before that it was (broadly speaking) the Confederacy.
While many posters will immediately scream 'but we have overwhelming air power' the fact is that depending on this, single fact (which the majority of current military planning seems to revolve around) is a major Achilles heel in strategy, just as much as assuming that all future wars would be settled with atom bombs was post WWII. I know the navy positively falls down anymore without near absolute air superiority.
Anyway, I'll stop my meandering rant there.
Well, its 128x if you count inflation (1941 - 2012). Thats also a massed figure vs. substantially lower amounts. Plus I don't believe the initial numbers given to begin with. I'd bet someone else's good money they are not an apples to apples comparison.
On the positive I just signed up for my first IDPA tournament. Wish me luck (or at least that there's nothing in the local news after...)
Jihadin wrote:Keep with the current time frame. Not "Nam" its "Shock and Awe" Its also a false disclaimer saying we have the air power so we win. Can't win a war with air power alone. Boots on the ground is key to winning.
IIRC we called it 'nape and grape' back then.
While I totally agree with boots on the ground being key to winning, it's stupendously easier with air power thinning out any serious obstacles and heavy dug in positions, as well as enemy armor. The US military has not been on the receiving end of anything close to us for a long time in the air, and it shows. When the UK ran up against an air power even remotely in it's ball park, while they did not lose much in the way of pilots, the RN took something of a beating because of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Well, its 128x if you count inflation (1941 - 2012). Thats also a massed figure vs. substantially lower amounts. Plus I don't believe the initial numbers given to begin with. I'd bet someone else's good money they are not an apples to apples comparison.
Frazz, that was counting inflation. In 2010 dollars (when GAO did the study) it cost $250 2010 dollars to train a grunt in WWII, it cost 60k 2010 dollars to train a grunt now.
Not entirely sure what you consider apples to apples, in this case, it's hard to have training equate something else.
Well, the biggest difference in concept seems to be that the bombs are now delivering themselves.
That, and precision > carpet bombing.
I still think the basic sentiment applies, though. People who are screaming "air power!!" now also did so back then, and we all know what happened.
.
Guys with the best air power won in WWII, Korea, Falklands, Desert Storm I Desert mambo II this time we're serious, Afghanistan (ok we bashed them in anyway, I don't think anyone wins in Afghanistan including the Afghanees), and of course the geatest war of our time, the invasion of Grenada.
Yea, Vietnam, not zo much. Of course if we had applied nukes like a certain big nozed president threatened to do....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Keep with the current time frame. Not "Nam" its "Shock and Awe" Its also a false disclaimer saying we have the air power so we win. Can't win a war with air power alone. Boots on the ground is key to winning.
IIRC we called it 'nape and grape' back then.
While I totally agree with boots on the ground being key to winning, it's stupendously easier with air power thinning out any serious obstacles and heavy dug in positions, as well as enemy armor. The US military has not been on the receiving end of anything close to us for a long time in the air, and it shows. When the UK ran up against an air power even remotely in it's ball park, while they did not lose much in the way of pilots, the RN took something of a beating because of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Well, its 128x if you count inflation (1941 - 2012). Thats also a massed figure vs. substantially lower amounts. Plus I don't believe the initial numbers given to begin with. I'd bet someone else's good money they are not an apples to apples comparison.
That can't be right. You're telling me it cost les than $25 to train someone in WWII. Pics or it didn't happen.
Frazz, that was counting inflation. In 2010 dollars (when GAO did the study) it cost $250 2010 dollars to train a grunt in WWII, it cost 60k 2010 dollars to train a grunt now.
Not entirely sure what you consider apples to apples, in this case, it's hard to have training equate something else.
Vietnam was just a fubar situation. Nothing was done right in that war. America 'could have' conquered the North and laid everything to waste, but policing a unified Vietnam and establishing a legitimate government there would have been near impossible. It was fethed from the beginning.
link to what it cost to equip a soldier from WWII on up
Ok it says $17m for a current soldier. Wiki says it cost 85 for the M1. Thats $1,300 in current which is actualy not far off from what it costs to get one now.
The M4 and scopes aren't nearly $17,000. Give it $2,500 for M4, optic and nightscope on a mass purchase scale would be in the ballpark. Don't know how much body armor costs . It must be the crappy army uniforms now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Vietnam was just a fubar situation. Nothing was done right in that war. America 'could have' conquered the North and laid everything to waste, but policing a unified Vietnam and establishing a legitimate government there would have been near impossible. It was fethed from the beginning.
The current WoT isn't nearly as bad as Vietnam. It's utterly amazing how badly McNamara and LBJ screwed the prosecution of the war up. The JCS had no say in anything early on in the war. Several individuals even believed that the US had little to no chance of winning the war, but it was believed that withdrawing would ruin America's reputation.
HHmmm ACH helmet cost 120 if you lose it
Unit cost for a M4 is about 600
FR ACU is about 180 top and bottom
My boots about 120 (Altama)
Oakly ballistic glasses is about 200
IOTV is about 1K
Front and back Sapi plates about 500 a piece
Side plates 300
ACOG for the rifle about 1400
NVG nods are about 3K
.....think they're throwing in development cost
or they're not including additional gear a soldier might carry
BaronIveagh wrote:
Not exactly. There are other factors, including contractile length, tissue density, and so on.
I didn't say "exactly."
By "tissue density" I assume you mean the density of skeletal muscle: this doesn't vary significantly across gender or individuals. It has an effect, but not a significant one.
Contractile length is only significant when you want to gauge strength by SRM.
Jihadin wrote:HHmmm ACH helmet cost 120 if you lose it
Unit cost for a M4 is about 600
FR ACU is about 180 top and bottom
My boots about 120 (Altama)
Oakly ballistic glasses is about 200
IOTV is about 1K
Front and back Sapi plates about 500 a piece
Side plates 300
ACOG for the rifle about 1400
NVG nods are about 3K
.....think they're throwing in development cost
or they're not including additional gear a soldier might carry
Considering they're saying the whole kit weighs around 73 pounds, I'm betting they're leaving out some gear.
What I'm thinking to Baron
Say a M249 cost about 3K
M240B about 6600
SINGAR radio (don't ever lose one. Your kids still be paying for it till they're retirement)
Jihadin wrote:What I'm thinking to Baron
Say a M249 cost about 3K
M240B about 6600
SINGAR radio (don't ever lose one. Your kids still be paying for it till they're retirement)
Wait you have to pay if you lose equipment, in a war zone? What kind of is that?
Frazzled wrote:
Guys with the best air power won in WWII , Korea, Falklands, Desert Storm I Desert mambo II this time we're serious, Afghanistan (ok we bashed them in anyway, I don't think anyone wins in Afghanistan including the Afghanees), and of course the geatest war of our time, the invasion of Grenada.
Yea, Vietnam, not zo much. Of course if we had applied nukes like a certain big nozed president threatened to do....
Umm...
WWII was actually lost by the side with the 'best' air-power to the side with the 'most' air power. We used the 'Grant' theory of warfare there.
Korea - Was never 'won' and we got our clocks cleaned in the air.
Falklands: While I grant that England did have a better equipped air force, I would suggest considering that the Argentines did a remarkable job for being behind, including badly crippling the Royal Navy, despite their casualties. While the RN pilots did not lose a man, they almost did not have a carrier to come home to.
Afghanistan: No one has won that war since Alexander the Great started it more then 3k years ago.
Desert Etc 1-? I agree, as in the open desert it's about air-power and mobility. And that fact that Iraq never really had an airforce worth the name, which we mostly blew up on the tarmac about an hour into the war.
Wait you have to pay if you lose equipment, in a war zone? What kind of is that?
You lose an accountable item through stupidity then yes you do. I even initate the paperwork myself. You lose an item to say an IED..actually ITEMS since an IED would probaly involve a MRAP/MATV/STRYKER or what have you then I will initate paperwork to have those items replaced. AN individaul lose a weapon I will make sure to take his/her pay, rank, and time not including his/her paying for the weapon itself.
Now if you ty to pull a fast one and say you lost your NVG's in an IED incident then I found out later you have it....I will take rank, pay, and time for not having integerty
WWII was actually lost by the side with the 'best' air-power to the side with the 'most' air power. We used the 'Grant' theory of warfare there.
***What nonsense are you talking about? US airpower creamed the Japanese. Outside of the ME262 (which was not materially superior to the meteor) US and UK fighters were equal or superior to German fighters. Our Medium bombers were equal or better, and we had heavy bombers.
Korea - Was never 'won' and we got our clocks cleaned in the air.
***Unless you’re North Korean or Chinese you’re so wrong its not funny. Our kill rates were 7 to 1 up to 14 to 1 depending on when you’re talking.
Falklands: While I grant that England did have a better equipped air force, I would suggest considering that the Argentines did a remarkable job for being behind, including badly crippling the Royal Navy, despite their casualties. While the RN pilots did not lose a man, they almost did not have a carrier to come home to.
***Almost aint squat.
Afghanistan: No one has won that war since Alexander the Great started it more then 3k years ago.
We are in agreement.
Desert Etc 1-? I agree, as in the open desert it's about air-power and mobility. And that fact that Iraq never really had an airforce worth the name, which we mostly blew up on the tarmac about an hour into the war.
***proves my point.
Wait you have to pay if you lose equipment, in a war zone? What kind of is that?
You lose an accountable item through stupidity then yes you do. I even initate the paperwork myself. You lose an item to say an IED..actually ITEMS since an IED would probaly involve a MRAP/MATV/STRYKER or what have you then I will initate paperwork to have those items replaced. AN individaul lose a weapon I will make sure to take his/her pay, rank, and time not including his/her paying for the weapon itself.
Now if you ty to pull a fast one and say you lost your NVG's in an IED incident then I found out later you have it....I will take rank, pay, and time for not having integerty
Define lose. Do you mean like "where did it go?" or do you mean damaged etc.? I mean I break guns all the time. I'm like the gremlin of guns. I've even broken an East German well maintained AK 47, pretty much just by having it in my presence. I'm like a really lame Ctan...
Also define stupidity. Wait, take that pic of me down right now!
Frazzled wrote:WWII was actually lost by the side with the 'best' air-power to the side with the 'most' air power. We used the 'Grant' theory of warfare there.
***What nonsense are you talking about? US airpower creamed the Japanese. Outside of the ME262 (which was not materially superior to the meteor) US and UK fighters were equal or superior to German fighters. Our Medium bombers were equal or better, and we had heavy bombers.
Korea - Was never 'won' and we got our clocks cleaned in the air.
***Unless you’re North Korean or Chinese you’re so wrong its not funny. Our kill rates were 7 to 1 up to 14 to 1 depending on when you’re talking.
Falklands: While I grant that England did have a better equipped air force, I would suggest considering that the Argentines did a remarkable job for being behind, including badly crippling the Royal Navy, despite their casualties. While the RN pilots did not lose a man, they almost did not have a carrier to come home to.
***Almost aint squat.
Afghanistan: No one has won that war since Alexander the Great started it more then 3k years ago.
We are in agreement.
Desert Etc 1-? I agree, as in the open desert it's about air-power and mobility. And that fact that Iraq never really had an airforce worth the name, which we mostly blew up on the tarmac about an hour into the war.
***proves my point.
I have to agree with Frazzled here.
WW2 - Japanese and German fighters were slightly superior and their pilots were probably superior, but they were outnumbered massively. People forget that Russia had a huge Air Force (or w/e they call it).
Lose as in misplaced, walked away, disappeared, boogyman got it, or left behind. Individuals are responsible for equipment they are signed for. If for an example you lose say your sapi side plates for your body armor you best find them in 30 mins or I initate paperwork for a "Statement of Lost" form which you need to show Central Issue Facility at a Main FoB to replace the ones your missing
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree with Frazz to on WWII
Korea we had the NK pushed almost all the way to border of China before China got involved. We did get our clock clean at the beginning IE Task Force Smith...Pusan Peremiter...
Desert Storm you really can't hide a tank at day nor night. Also there were actual "lines"
Where on earth are you getting that German and Japanese fighters were superior?
Wildcats were better than zeros in surviavability, dive and climbing rates.
Hellcats/corsairs completely outclassed them and only later Oscars could get close.
Europa:
*Spitfire superior ME 109 inferior
*Spitfire higher marks and Mustangs were equal to Butcher Birds.
Medium bombers:
*Havocs/mitchells were every bit as good or better than comparable german medium bombers
*The British Mosquito is viewed by many as te best bomber of all sides.
heavy:
The Germans didn't have any.
Yes they had some ME 262s, but they didn't change the course of the war, and British jets were in production not far behind (Americans were slower).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Lose as in misplaced, walked away, disappeared, boogyman got it, or left behind. Individuals are responsible for equipment they are signed for. If for an example you lose say your sapi side plates for your body armor you best find them in 30 mins or I initate paperwork for a "Statement of Lost" form which you need to show Central Issue Facility at a Main FoB to replace the ones your missing
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree with Frazz to on WWII
Korea we had the NK pushed almost all the way to border of China before China got involved. We did get our clock clean at the beginning IE Task Force Smith...Pusan Peremiter...
Desert Storm you really can't hide a tank at day nor night. Also there were actual "lines"
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the ME262 (which was not materially superior to the meteor) US and UK fighters were equal or superior to German fighters
wut
The Me262 was a whopping 300 kph faster than the Meteor (900 vs 600) and better armed. She just came too late to have any meaningful effect, and then Hitler got the grand idea of turning her into a long range bomber.
The Allies did have the better bombers, though.
As for the Pacific theatre, from what I've read it was rather circumstancial, with the Zero being overall faster and more maneuverable and having a longer range, whereas the Cats and Corsairs had more guns and were faster during combat maneuvering (though the Zero could pull a tighter loop).
German aircraft was fuel injected
German pilots already had more combat experience then their british counterpart
German Luftwaffe was geared towards supporting the german land army
Japanese aircraft were much lighter (no armor)
Japanese pilots already had more experience then their american counterpart
Japanese had way more aircraft's combat operational then the US
Above was early war
US outmass produced fighters then either country
US trained way more pilots then either country
US were able to rotate pilots from combat to downtime
Germany pilots were fly to you die hence they have the highest scoring aces in the world. Hell Erich Hartmann shot down 4 mustangs in one sortie
German aircraft was fuel injected
***British pilots were fuel injected...
German pilots already had more combat experience then their british counterpart
***Thats why the British pilots were fuel injected.
German Luftwaffe was geared towards supporting the german land army
***By about 3 in the afternoon the British pilots were so fuel injected they couldn't see the ground.
EDIT: You're right the meteors were substantially slower. Time for more liquid fueling!
Frazzled wrote:WWII was actually lost by the side with the 'best' air-power to the side with the 'most' air power. We used the 'Grant' theory of warfare there.
***What nonsense are you talking about? US airpower creamed the Japanese. Outside of the ME262 (which was not materially superior to the meteor) US and UK fighters were equal or superior to German fighters. Our Medium bombers were equal or better, and we had heavy bombers.
The average German pilot was better trained, more experienced, and had more kills than his US or British Equivalent. While, I grant, their medium bombers were lacking, their close air support (particularly on the Eastern Front) had superior experience and accuracy. Remember that medium and heavy bombers are largely strategic rather than tactical. The B-25 had a hard time hitting anything smaller than a freighter, despite variants being fitted as bunkerbusters.
If we want to talk about the ME262, there's a big difference between it and the Meteor. Edit: which has been gone over.
On Japan: in fact, for most of the war, we largely got creamed "by' the Japanese, due to our inferior carrier based aircraft until the f4. Our solution: flood them with more planes then they can counter. We built over 151 carriers and beat them to death.
Frazzled wrote:
Korea - Was never 'won' and we got our clocks cleaned in the air.
***Unless you’re North Korean or Chinese you’re so wrong its not funny. Our kill rates were 7 to 1 up to 14 to 1 depending on when you’re talking.
Officially: the US air force claims 10 to 1 their favor. However, recently declassified records from both the US and former USSR showed the numbers were closer to 3.4 to 1 in favor of the Soviet pilots.
Frazzled wrote:
***Almost aint squat.
...Don't look like squat to me...
With the exception of losses aboard the General Belgrano, Casualties on both sides were nearly equal. Further, as a peculiarity of that war, casualties figures almost double if you factor in post war suicides by veterans involved.
The average German pilot was better trained, more experienced, and had more kills than his US or British Equivalent.
***Mostly against the Soviets. I am not discussing them.
their close air support (particularly on the Eastern Front) had superior experience and accuracy.
***Better than our Thunderbolts and Typhoons? Please provide proof.
Remember that medium and heavy bombers are largely strategic rather than tactical.
***That’s kind of the point. With equivalent fights but better bombers, and more of all, which side won? We did.
On Japan: in fact, for most of the war, we largely got creamed "by' the Japanese, due to our inferior carrier based aircraft until the f4.
***The fighters that flew at Midway were predominantly F4s. That’s six months into the war.
Our solution: flood them with more planes then they can counter. We built over 151 carriers and beat them to death.
***Plus had better aircraft. But again, you support my point. The force with the superior air forces won.
Frazzled wrote:
Korea - Was never 'won' and we got our clocks cleaned in the air.
***Unless you’re North Korean or Chinese you’re so wrong its not funny. Our kill rates were 7 to 1 up to 14 to 1 depending on when you’re talking.
Officially: the US air force claims 10 to 1 their favor. However, recently declassified records from both the US and former USSR showed the numbers were closer to 3.4 to 1 in favor of the Soviet pilots.
***Reportedly there was something on the order of two Russian squadrons vs. everyone else. Again, we stopped them cold. In this case, literally.
Frazzled wrote:
***Almost aint squat.
...Don't look like squat to me...
***That’s not a carrier….
With the exception of losses aboard the General Belgrano, Casualties on both sides were nearly equal. Further, as a peculiarity of that war, casualties figures almost double if you factor in post war suicides by veterans involved.
***Who cares they still lost. Once again the superior air forces won.
I don't know how the thread got here but IIRC the Me262 and the Spitfire were good equals with both having advantages and disadvantages compared to the other...
purplefood wrote:I don't know how the thread got here but IIRC the Me262 and the Spitfire were good equals with both having advantages and disadvantages compared to the other...
I think you mean the MeBF109 and the Spitfire were roughly equals. Me262 was the top tier fighter, but was produced in such small numbers as to be largely irrelevant.
By the time the ME262 made its presence a threat the Lufftwaffe were pretty much shot 9 ways to Hell. Hitler wanted it as a fighter/bomber for the longest time that pretty much screwed the project. Time it went into pure fighter mode the logistic chain to support...well...basically anything at that point was seriously lacking. Example...horse drawn cart to the runway to conserve fuel.
As for the Eastern front the germans did not have fighter squadrons spread all out the entire front. The squadrons were assembled over a particualer front to assist in or defend a known point. IE Kursk till then they were station at "hot spots"
Japanese had the most aircraft carriers at the beginning of the war till we out produce them. Resources was a choke point for the japanese for ship production.
German fighter pilot has the most oppurtunity to shoot down an american fighter then the american fighter pilot has a chance to shoot down a german fighter
German Stuka was better then the Thunderbolt or Typhoon since the Stuka was designed specifically for its role. Rudel being an example. Still air superiority plays into ground support. US were new comers into ground support doctrine
Japanese fighter and pilot were totally screwed due to no armor in their fighter...also logistic too totally screwed the japanese throughout the pacific over time
As for the Korean war. The North Korean pilot was a new comer to air combat unlike their Soviet pilots who were experience pilots form WWII dealing with our experience pilots from WWII (those in leadership position on both sides)
Frazzled wrote:
***Better than our Thunderbolts and Typhoons? Please provide proof.
One stuka piilot, Hans Rudel achieved the following: over 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, a destroyer, two cruisers, one Soviet battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, several bridges and nine aircraft which he shot down.
Frazzled wrote:
***The fighters that flew at Midway were predominantly F4s. That’s six months into the war.
F4U, not F4F. Midway was partially decided by the failure of the Japanese to neutralize the US land based aircraft, which were, by nature, superior to what could be put on carrier. One on one, the zero could (and did) clean our clock, as nothing we had compared to it. Fortunately, we were able to simply bury them in material.
'More' is not 'better'. A swordsman worth 400 gold coins can be easily killed by 400 spearmen, costing one gold each.
Frazzled wrote:The fighter aircraft at Midway were obsolete Buffaloes and again, the F4...
True, and in their capacity as fighters, they did miserably. Their major achievement was to help the torp squadrons draw the Japanese carrier fighter cover to close to sea level, giving the Dauntless DBs' an opening (which was actually more luck than planning). The Wildcat's actual performance as a fighter was questionable at best, though they did make a few kills, and they were quickly replaced with the Hellcat, which could at least outrun a Zeke in a straight line.
Comparatively, if not for the loss of the carriers, the air battle for Midway would have been a serious failure for the US. Japanese losses in the air were minimal, though not insignificant. The loss of the carriers and the aircraft losses that caused, however, turned it into a win, though barely. Midway was not the huge victory that many make it out to be, with both forces withdrawing following the fighting, Spruance possibly concerned that if the Japanese fleet would turn on him in the dark, Yamamoto's battleships would turn the situation from victory to defeat with the US carriers near useless at night.
The classification of the Battle of Midway as a great naval battle has naturally tended to place the historic focus onto the ships and the sailors, and so take a little away from the aircraft which participated on both sides, particularly from those based on the island ‘carrier’ which has given the battle its name.
As an air battle lasting just a few days Midway was unusual in the number and variety of aircraft involved. It involved a tragic ‘last hurrah’ for some types and their heroic crews and a shaky debut for other types, some of which went on to great success in their design roles. Others were switched to new uses in other war theatres, achieving success there.
AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
It was the first and only combat use by US forces of the Brewster F2A-3 ‘Buffalo’, flown off Midway by the Marine Corps pilots of VMF-221. Hopelessly outclassed by the Zeros, thirteen of the twenty operational F2A’s were shot down in the first Japanese attack. The Buffalo had a brief post-Midway role as a flight trainer.
The other obsolete American aircraft on Midway were the eleven Vought SB2U - 3 ‘Vindicators’ of Marine Corps VMSB-241. They left Midway together with the SBD-2 Dauntless bombers of the same unit but their low speed meant they arrived after the others. Three of the Vindicators were lost in this action, another one while returning from a late search flight and a further one in their last use in combat, the attack on the IJN heavy cruisers the next day,
The biggest single loss of obsolete American aircraft at Midway was sustained by the carrier borne Douglas TBD ‘Devastator’ torpedo bombers of VT-3, VT-6 and VT-8. Thirty five of the forty one Devastators which took part were destroyed. Like the Vindicator the TBD’s were not used in combat after Midway, being replaced by the Grumman Avenger.
Six Midway based brand new Grumman TBF Avengers of VT-8 took part in the first badly coordinated attacks on the Japanese Carrier Group. Five of the six were destroyed, the sixth being badly shot up but managing to return to the island. The Avenger never the less went on to be the Allies’ most successful torpedo bomber, ‘front line’ until VJ Day.
The four new Army Air Force B-26 Marauders were no more successful in their torpedo bomber role. They scored no hits, two of them being shot down and a third crash landing when it returned to Midway. Some Marauder equipped units remained operational in the South Pacific in both bomber and torpedo-bomber roles, but their main subsequent use and successes were in Europe and North Africa.
This was also the case with the Boeing B-17E Flying Fortresses. Although none of these were lost in direct combat during the Battle of Midway their high level attacks on the Invasion Force on 3 June and on the Carrier Group the following day produced no better results than similar ones made off Luzon and Australia some months earlier. B-17’s were progressively replaced in the Pacific theatre by B-24 Liberators, and much later by the B-29 Superfortress.
The star ship-destroying role at Midway was filled by the Douglas SBD ‘Dauntless’. Both mark 2 and mark 3 versions took part, the earlier as part of VMSB-241 on Midway, the later version flying from all three American carriers as scouts and dive-bombers and sinking or mortally wounding all four IJN carriers and a heavy cruiser.
Tremendously strong, a reliably stable platform in a dive, and in spite of its nickname nimble enough to successfully scrap with Japanese fighters on many occasions, including Midway, various versions of the "Barge" were flown by the US Navy, Marine Corps and Army Air Force and several Allied air forces, many still being service at the end of WW II.
The front line American fighter at Midway was the Grumman F4F ‘Wildcat’, with VMF-221 flying the mark 3 version from Midway and VF-3, 6 and 8 operating the mark 4 version from all three carriers. Both versions made kills at Midway, and although the F4F's were progressively replaced by F5F Hellcats on fleet carriers, later Wildcat versions including the GM built FM-2 served on escort carriers until the end of the war.
American reconnaissance patrols before and during the battle and rescue missions after were mainly carried out by Consolidated PBY-5 and 5A ‘’Catalina’s" flying from Midway. PBY’s made the first sightings of both the Invasion Force on 3 June and the Carrier group on 4 June. Less fortunately, a PBY was also the first American casualty, one being shot down on 3 June by seaplanes from an IJN seaplane tender in the Invasion Force.
Version of this remarkable aircraft remained in service until the end of WWII and beyond, serving not just as scout and utility aircraft but in combat roles such as bombing and torpedo attacks and in mine laying operations in the Pacific Ocean and China Sea.
Curtiss SOC-3 "Seagull" floatplanes carried by US cruisers in both TF 16 and !7 were launched on scouting flights on 5 and 6 June, and this sturdy biplane, capable of service on floats or with wheels, also remained in service at least until 1946. A lone example of another durable American biplane floatplane, a Grumman J2F-2 "Duck", was on the ground on Midway and together with a timber and metal decoy aircraft known as the "JFU" became the first American aircraft on Midway to be destroyed by Japanese bombs.
The last air action of the Battle of Midway was taken on the evening of 6 June, when four newly arrived USAAF aircraft took off for night raid on the nearest Japanese air base, Wake Island. The aircraft were the LB-30 version of the Consolidated B-24 "Liberator". They failed to find their target and the lead aircraft failed to return. The B-24 went on to success in every theatre, being built in greater numbers than any other US aircraft in WWII.
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
Apart from the Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter and possibly the B5N1 torpedo bomber, the other carrier based Japanese combat aircraft, like their American counterparts, were considered obsolescent and approaching replacement. The first was to prove a crucial ‘apart’, as almost all the early American losses were due to intercepts by the Zeros.
The most advanced aircraft of either side at Midway, the Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21, variously known as the Reisen, 'Zeke' and Zero, was a lethal combination of agility and range flown by battle experienced pilots. The performance advantages were gained at the expense of lighter construction, lack of armor or fuel tank protection and less power than their American opponents.
The floatplane version of the Zero, the Nakajima A6M2-N 'Rufe', was also present at Midway, on board the seaplane carriers in the Invasion Force, but appear to have been intended for use from Midway after its capture, and were not used in the battle.
Versatile Nakajima B5N1 "Kate" aircraft were used both as level and torpedo bombers, but this very versatility was to cost the Japanese more dearly than the American use of individual types for each role, when time lost in change-overs and the unsecured ordinance left the Japanese carriers as floating bombs. Its replacement in the form of the NakajimaB6N ‘Jill’ was a long time coming, gradually replacing Kates between 1943 and 1944.
The Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive-bomber rode high on the tide of initial Japanese victories, and is said to have sunk more Allied warships than any other Axis aircraft, but Midway probably marked the peak of its career. Although versions of the Val were in production until 1945, from Midway on its low speed and poor armament made it increasingly vulnerable to improved Allied aircraft, tactics and numbers. It was then turned mainly to shore based use, and replaced on carriers by the improved mark 2 and 3 versions of the Yokosuka D4Y
One Yokosuka D4Y1 "Judy" was used at Midway as a reconnaissance aircraft, another having been damaged on the way. Designed as a dive bomber replacement for the Aichi D3A-1 Val, the Judy was at this time fitted with an unreliable engine and plagued with structural problems. Later re-engined and modified structurally it did successfully replace the Val as Japan’s front line dive-bomber.
Aircraft from two IJN carriers and three escorts of the Carrier Group took part in the 4 June reconnaissance. One obsolete Kawanishi E7K1 "Dave" floatplane was launched from the battleship Haruna and initially one Mitsubishi F1M "Pete" and one Aichi E13A "Jake" from the cruiser Tone and two Aichi E13A "Jake’s" from the cruiser Chikuma.
The Daves were withdrawn to training uses after Midway but the slightly younger and much tougher Petes were extensively used in a variety of roles for the rest of the Pacific war, while the Jake with its up to 15 hour endurance was used for scouting until the end.
Unlike some of the American aircraft types, all of the Japanese aircraft which appeared at Midway were still in some form of service at the end off the war, and many individual aircraft put in brief final appearances in Kamikaze squadrons.
20-20 HINDSIGHT
Japanese aircraft sustained ‘acceptable’ combat losses in the air. It was the total loss of the remaining aircraft and their experienced aircrews following the sinking of the four Japanese carriers, including those planes and crews being carried for landing on Midway, which represented the greatest blow to the Japanese Naval Air Service.
The use of these few slow, older aircraft to locate the American ships is hard to explain, particularly given the facts that the Japanese lacked radar and any firm intelligence reports on the location of the American carriers. In fact this could be seen to have been an even bigger mistake than those later ones of Admiral Nagumo, and the one which started the process of compounding errors which led to his defeat.
This was certainly the view of Mitsuo Fuchida, the Japanese pilot and author who was present at Midway, given in his 1955 book "Midway, the Battle That Doomed Japan"
It is made more puzzling by the fact that the IJN Midway search pattern was a re-run of that used a few months earlier in the attack on British bases and ships in and around Ceylon, which had come close to allowing some potentially dangerous situations there.
On the American side the apparently reckless use of aircraft and crews in a series of uncoordinated and increasingly desperate attacks without a single hit before 10.20 was not without achievement. The Japanese carrier formation and their defenses were split up and the continuing presence of land based aircraft played a big part in Nagumo’s decision to call for a second strike on Midway.
Perhaps most important of all, the various low level American attacks succeeded in drawing all the Japanese fighter cover down almost to sea level, leaving the way clear for the crushing Dauntless dive bomber runs which in less than five minutes fatally hit the three Japanese carriers and turned the battle towards the final American victory.
ALL AIRCRAFT WHICH TOOK ACTIVE PART
US NAVY- CARRIER BASED
Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless Dive Bomber
Douglas TBD-1 Devastator Torpedo Bomber
Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat Fighter
sebster wrote: People instead are arguing that even if a woman could meet the requirements they don't get in, because of hygiene and also because a sniper might shoot one in the leg, at which point the chivalrous nature of all the men folk means they'd rush madly to her rescue and all get killed, or something.
There's no such thing as chivalry in the military. That's why all the female officers I know are absolutely stunned/appalled when I show it towards my wife and themselves and all the male officers ask what the hell I'm doing.
Except the few from the South, of course. They still raise men proper there.
Platuan4th wrote:They still raise men proper there.
That's why they're so fun to brawl with. Texans. Set em on fire, dislocate their shoulders, they keep on coming. Like Terminators that know how to do a rebel yell.
Georgians are tough, but stupid. I think it takes a few tics for them to realize they're hit. Texans know they're hit, and like it.
Give me a bar or a battlefield full of Texans any day.
Platuan4th wrote:They still raise men proper there.
That's why they're so fun to brawl with. Texans. Set em on fire, dislocate their shoulders, they keep on coming. Like Terminators that know how to do a rebel yell.
Georgians are tough, but stupid. I think it takes a few tics for them to realize they're hit. Texans know they're hit, and like it.
Give me a bar or a battlefield full of Texans any day.
Fág a' Bealach!
You have garnered the respect of a Texan, son of a Texan who was run over by his wife...twice!
Could you tell the gender of a solider under all that kit?
At any rate gender wouldn't come into it if I was shooting...
Take the easiest shot first then try for the other one...
If it was the same difficulty, whichever one is standing on the left.
purplefood wrote:Could you tell the gender of a solider under all that kit? At any rate gender wouldn't come into it if I was shooting... Take the easiest shot first then try for the other one... If it was the same difficulty, whichever one is standing on the left.
Yes you can tell a male and a female in body armor.
I shoot the female for the mental shock to the unit.
The other fatal flaw is this: as honorable men, we the marines will not be able to stand by an think rationally as a woman lays wounded, dying and screaming from combat wounds. This will put other marines at risk as we try to save them without any assessment of the combat situation. I realize that this is the problem of the men, but it is irresponsible to risk the security of the country and the lives of men to accommodate the whims of Washington!
There is a big difference between being in a combat role and being in the infantry. Women have in-fact been in roles that have placed them in harm's way because with modern weaponry, there really is no longer a "rear area" in a combat theater. As such, not only women, but all Marines serving in a support MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) have had to endure dangerous assignments and that is why Marine Combat Training (MCT) was devised years ago. On the other hand, the role of the infantryman is to expect and train to be right there on the front lines or in support of those front line assignments not as a support MOS, but as a direct combat support job.
My personal belief is that women could get the job done, but the way that the majority of males were brought up; to care for the female, it would be very tough mindset-wise to see females being killed and/or injured. As males, we grow up wrestling other guys, tackling other guys, fighting other guys, etc. It definitely would have a mental impact
Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first
purplefood wrote:Could you tell the gender of a solider under all that kit?
At any rate gender wouldn't come into it if I was shooting...
Take the easiest shot first then try for the other one...
If it was the same difficulty, whichever one is standing on the left.
Whose left? His? Or yours?
Mine obviously...
I'm the one shooting at them after all...
@Jihadin Quotes from two marines aren't necessarily representative of the entire corps...
Jihadin wrote:Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first
I think you missed the point: I've seen men react that way in a sniper situation even when the bait was not a woman, even though their training should have prevented them from doing it. As honorable men, the Marine's reaction is, quite frequently, to pull their friends out of the line of fire, quite possibly at the risk of their own lives. It's just as damaging to force them to watch a pal bleed out as it is to shoot a woman.
Throwing this out before someone gets me on this and really think I'm a cold hearted killer. I will not shoot a woman unless I physicaly see her shooting at us. As for a female sucide bomber she going to succeed due to the fact she is wearing a burqou. The men are a bit easy to spot. Since seeing a well groomed and clean haji who smells good (wind) coming towards us is out of place...way out of place.
Jihadin wrote:Throwing this out before someone gets me on this and really think I'm a cold hearted killer. I will not shoot a woman unless I physicaly see her shooting at us. As for a female sucide bomber she going to succeed due to the fact she is wearing a burqou. The men are a bit easy to spot. Since seeing a well groomed and clean haji who smells good (wind) coming towards us is out of place...way out of place.
Following common sense and the RoE is just good soldiering. What I have to wonder though is, you don't seem to have a good idea of how damaging that sniper trick can be to any unit, with any bait, regardless of gender. There's a reason it still works, even in this day and age.
Jihadin wrote:I shoot the female for the mental shock to the unit.
I for one believe that this mindset won't hold much longer once society has freed itself from the whole "women = weak = need protection by manly men" deal that has been part of Western culture for a couple centuries now, propagated as part of the "proper gentleman behaviour" routine.
People need to realize that this isn't a genetical/biological thing, and hasn't been around forever either. At least I don't think that certain ancient cultures would've been so stupid to include female warriors in their ranks if their deaths would've had such an effect on their morale. I see nothing on such an effect in the historical accounts, at least.
Quite on the contrary, the presence of females in those units only spurred the male warriors on to even greater feats of battle heroism, as the whole "alpha male" stuff is indeed something that might be regarded as instinctive. Of course, this can have negative side-effects as well, but from what I've read of contemporary military articles so far, the positive effects seem to outweigh the negatives. Or rather, the negatives seem to remain limited to the off-duty sector, and this can be kept in check by old fashioned military discipline. Or at least it should be.
@Baron. Only one experience in my squad. My turret gunner that took one to the ACH on a convoy to Wilson. Not going to count the one that shut down Northen Bagram for 5 hrs (he nailed two peeps on that one) but pretty much delayed the aircrafts from taking off and landing. The marines at Fullujah, Iraq was a good training tool on what to expect for a sniper that knows what he is doing.. I'm not going t count my time either at Al Sharif in western Afghan because I do believe we had just amateurs taking a shots at the FoB. I've seen the effect though on 5/2 Stryker in Southern Afghan when a Stryker got hit with an IED that flipped it and began to burned. SOldiers tried to assist but there was a sniper. Regardless if they manage to get tothe troops inside the ramp was distorted to open and it was upside down. Eight burned alive. The IED broke the Halon system before it can go off. Now Strykers roll with two Halon systems. Still that platoon was devastated.
Then you see my point. The scenario you laid out would have mostly likely been devastating to the platoon regardless of the gender of the bait. And that was in a situation where there was no chance of saving them. Now picture the situation where they're literally laying in the open five feet away. Those guys would be straining at the bit to pull that guy to cover rather then watch him die. Even if none of them do it, they're going to be left permanently fethed up after an experience like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Military discipline? Now why would you expect any of that?
That's like... expecting COMPETENCE.
You'd be surprised. Both in who is competent and who is not.
Baron I alrady knew that. Regardless of gender. In fact I mention it earlier. Males have the ability to emotionaly shut down and drive on. A screaming wounded female breaks that psych because it pretty much unnerves everyone. Where is a male pretty much get nailed either cussing or concentrate ignoring the pain till jostled then he cuss at the guy jostling. WHen I got nailed I asked like three times "WTH happen?" a couple of "What asshat shot me in the back" thinking at first a negligent discharge. I wasn't shot I got struck down by a rock the size of a grapefruit from an IED. At first I was pissed it was a rock then the pain came in
I found an interesting article here that makes some really good arguments on why mingling the ranks is a bad idea.
Just keep replacing "negro" with "woman", and you'll be enjoying all the same arguments about how it would totally ruin discipline and morale and unit cohesion.
Nice read but one point. It involve males from a different era. Better yet it was a different ERA. It was acceptable to use the word "negro" back then. Trying it today would result in me slamming you at the least. The company commander might take it farther but SMAJ will make you worry about your carreer
I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.
The idea that men would turn into irrational, suicidal super-hero wannabes the instant a female comrade is in danger does nothing except say "Men have neither the discipline, nor the emotional maturity to be trusted in a theater of war". Let's face it if they so easily crumble to fulfilling that immature "Rescue the damsel!" power fantasy I have little reason to believe they won't want to take of their shirts jump out of cover and fire widely into the engagement because "That's how a real action hero takes down bad guys" or refusing to move away from an air strike target because "I have to walk away from the explosion without looking at it to be cool".
Besides it's emotional connections and the general state of being human that makes people take risks for each other, at least the big ones anyway. Soldiers are already have that in large amounts with each other, the fact that a person has ovaries really isn't going to have a huge impact on that.
It shows that men don't have the self discipline that women do, and shouldn't be allowed in the military at all because self discipline is the foundation of all military manoeuvres.
At that time caucasion troops would not be lead by a color officer unlike now
At that time the Negro's were not considered on par to their white counter part in education unlike now
Segregation was still enforced in the military to seperate black and whites including billet areas unlike now
Also a provision in the selective service was in play:
That no man shall be inducted for training and service under this act unless and until he is acceptable to the land or naval forces for such training and service and his physical and mental fitness for such training and service has been satisfactorily determined: Provided further, That no men shall be inducted for such training and service until adequate provision shall have been made for such shelter, sanitary facilities, water supplies, heating and lighting arrangements, medical care, and hospital accommodations, for such men, as may be determined by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be, to be essential to public and personal health.
Unlike now
Do I need to clarify further on why it was two different era's Mel?
Melissia wrote:I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.
Melissia wrote:I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.
You're not crazy if you talk to yourself.
You're ony slightly crazy if you answer back.
If you get into a shouting match and fisticuffs with yourself, then you're crazy as a gak rat...
Jihadin wrote:ERA....E...R...A....was the point I was making.
At that time caucasion troops would not be lead by a color officer unlike now
At that time the Negro's were not considered on par to their white counter part in education unlike now
Segregation was still enforced in the military to seperate black and whites including billet areas unlike now
Also a provision in the selective service was in play:
That no man shall be inducted for training and service under this act unless and until he is acceptable to the land or naval forces for such training and service and his physical and mental fitness for such training and service has been satisfactorily determined: Provided further, That no men shall be inducted for such training and service until adequate provision shall have been made for such shelter, sanitary facilities, water supplies, heating and lighting arrangements, medical care, and hospital accommodations, for such men, as may be determined by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be, to be essential to public and personal health.
Jihadin, I know you're smart enough not to have missed Mel 's(surprisingly accurate for once) comparison, which was that your basic argument against women now is the same one they made against blacks then.
On this one I agree with Mel, I dont really see an issue, forget the whole female/black thing.. isnt that the exact same thing they used to say about letting gay soldiers serve?
As If you would suddenly start to ignore orders and run off to go see your lover because you happen to have sex with him a whole bunch?
Its all about being professional, it's why I never once mistreated a prisoner despite the fact he was just taking pot shots at my troop, and one time the fether shot two lads in my section and we had to get them an air casevac. Actually.. here I have an amusing picture.
That was just after he got flung off the sergeant majors quad, and just before he got stuck on the chopper.. apparently it missed his femoral artery by an inch. The CSM always got casualty photos with people giving the thumbs up so they would look like tough guys if they wound up stuck on the wall of death!
We captured three guys shortly afterwards and they got processed as normal, simply because that is what professionals do. I didnt feel an urge to go and pummell their faces in because its ridiculously idiotic. If your intel guys say "you follow the procedure because it allows us to get the most information from POWs" then you don't allow your stupidity to get in the way of the task in hand.
If a soldier hasnt got the brains to know why we follow orders, then he has no business carrying a firearm.
As I said though, I am arrogant because I wasnt in a chicken gak outfit. I would not expect this type of sex issue to affect anyone I ever worked alongside, but perhaps it might be an issue for less well trained soldiers, such as national guardsmen.
But they wont be at the tip of the spear anyway, so who gives a gak?
All the guardsmen I have worked with have been so far in the rear they had to send their laundry forwards!
Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped. Should I go into detail about what happened on the Eastern front? None of the enemies we have ever fought respect women. If the Germans, who everyone thinks were "civilized" for some reason, gang raped and killed every woman they captured, what do you think the bas****s we're fighting will do?
Historian Szymon Datner wrote in his work about the fate of POWs taken by the Wehrmacht, that thousands of Soviet female nurses, doctors and field medics fell victim to rape when captured, and were often murdered afterwards.[34] Ruth Seifert in War and Rape. Analytical Approaches wrote: "in the Eastern territories the Wehrmacht used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women - and other women as well - with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and to use them accordingly."
In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline.[65] The German military command viewed them as another method of crushing Soviet resistance.
According to the historian Regina Mühlhäuser the Wehrmacht also used sexual torture and undressing in numerous cases of interrogations.
Estimates regarding the rape of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht reached up to 10,000,000 cases
1925 Army War College report called The Use of Negro Manpower in War
Was a major influence back then on african american troops unlike today. It was a standard that was acceptable back then unlike today. Basically a written policy that had a major influence among white officers that prejudged unlike today. A different war and a different society unllike today. If someone bringing up the past as a comparison to today then one should know why it was in play in the past. Example on another thread was the vietcong execution by the National Police chief of South Vietnam. What lead to that event and why.
Also it concern the male gender not female
As for females in combat today I've no issue with it since everyone regardless of MOS is a target. The difference though is combat role and a combat line unit. The marines test program compose of officers. Females going to a line platoon. Baron you know and I know that a line infantry platoon is not going to slack on the standards and basically try to break the officer. If an officer/NCO cannot make it within the platoon you and I know what will happen
Marines did though create FET's. Which has already put a dent into the project because of previous members of FET's performed under standards while attach to marine rifle platoons. I'm sure the marines went over the AAR's and reports concerning FET's in combat and implemented actions that would help improve the female chances.
Unlike back then compare to today there is no written report in play concerning females in combat compare to the war college report on african american in combat
All the guardsmen I have worked with have been so far in the rear they had to send their laundry forwards
Most A10 squadron are National Guards....thought you love the A10 Matty
Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped
Yes mate, of course captured women are risking a raping, but they still volunteer for service! If we had conscription, you may have a point, but we don't.
Ergo, they cant be forced into getting raped.
Any woman who enters service has to know that she is likely to get raped surely? Its common sense. If they still volunteer, then all power to them!
gak, I thought the Afghans were proper gay me. Loads of them.. aren't men at risk of getting raped too? I was in Sierra Leone when 6 Irish guards got captured, they all got raped. I also read a book called "Unscathed" by a RM major, and he describes in detail a Norwegian soldier getting staked to the floor and ass raped by about ten guys. Is it any better for us?!
Plus, considering they have a penchant for putting you in a jump suit and then lopping your crust off with a machete, I think risking a good raping would be the least of my worries!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Most A10 squadron are National Guards....thought you love the A10 Matty
I think they all are nowadays aren't they? They don't deploy to the sandbox year round anymore either sadly. :(
You know I love the A-10, I just meant "worked with" as in on the ground, not up in the air. We used to RV with the Intel guys from the Oklahoma guard once or twice a week and they were good guys, but they had external assets for ground ops generally, the point is, snatch and grabs and advance to contact stuff aren't generally done by the guard.
To be fair, its not smart to send less well trained guys into the grinder when you have thousands of other assets to use is it? Generally the big dogs take the locations and then the Guard man them later on. The USMC took Fallujah when I was in Baghdad, they wouldn't have said "Pull the devil dogs back, lets get some of those green civvies from the guard to have a crack at it first!" would they?
Since we're on the subject, I'll mention why every rape victim should be offended by feminists. They are extremely diminishing of the tragedy of rape with their over inflated statistics.
According to feminists, women are more likely to be raped in the United States than in eastern Germany at the end of the war.
The number of Nazis raped at the end of the war was 1 in 5. Feminists claim that in America it's 1 in 3 or very occasionally 1 in 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe every soldier should carry doctor's notes that say they have one of a variety of STDs(printed in 10 different languages)
It's not really that funny, and I doubt they would pay attention to it.
Jihadin wrote:1925 Army War College report called The Use of Negro Manpower in War
Was a major influence back then on african american troops unlike today. It was a standard that was acceptable back then unlike today. Basically a written policy that had a major influence among white officers that prejudged unlike today. A different war and a different society unllike today.
So basically the same thing that women have to face today compared to, say, in another 50 years.
Also, I'm fairly sure that existing bias and prejudice influenced this report, rather than the other way around.
Jihadin wrote:The marines test program compose of officers. Females going to a line platoon. Baron you know and I know that a line infantry platoon is not going to slack on the standards and basically try to break the officer. If an officer/NCO cannot make it within the platoon you and I know what will happen
Is anyone here proposing different standards for different genders, though?
Jihadin wrote:Unlike back then compare to today there is no written report in play concerning females in combat compare to the war college report on african american in combat
Actually, there are a number of papers on the use of females in combat. Just that like the War College Report (excerpt here) many of them are based on assumptions rather than actual experiences. I suppose that a lack in objectivity is somewhat understandable given that you can't really report on something that does not exist, not to mention that proponents of either side are prone to have these assumptions influenced by their personal opinion. In this case perhaps the US should turn to other nations and examine their experiences?
In basic officer training, this young woman was offered the chance to take the physical exam for acceptance into Ranger school, the Army's legendarily tough commando course. She and two other women aced the test – even though they were barred from attending the male-only school or to join Ranger units. [...]
A group of female Army cooks apparently felt the same way. They were deployed to Iraq where they discovered all the cooking was done by civilian contractors. Instead, they were pressed into service as infantry and came home proudly wearing the highly prized Combat Infantryman Badge, earned only by participating in a firefight with the enemy while a member of or assigned with infantry or special forces. [...]
"There's a growing number of women out there who have served 'outside the wire' on combat missions,'' said a woman who served on active duty in Iraq as an Army intelligence officer. "We carried a full basic load of ammunition and fired the SAW, .50-cals and M-4 to protect our fellow man and to defeat the enemy,'' said this young officer, who asked not to be identified by name because of her current job.
So you have women who meet the physical requirements barred from service because of gender. And these very same women may still end up doing that job - they, and their gender, just don't get credit for it and the military continues to hold on to its official line of "women can't do this". This isn't just inequality, this is a slap in the face for every female soldier in the service.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped. Should I go into detail about what happened on the Eastern front?
Wow.
By this logic nobody should be allowed to join the military because all soldiers may get tortured or executed, which I hope you know happens regardless of gender.
Do you really think male Russian PoW's captured by the Wehrmacht had it that much better? Do you think that civilian Russian women in areas occupied by the Wehrmacht were treated differently?
Mattyrm: Your unit sounds alright. Kudos for keeping a cool head out there.
Well, the main issue is that feminists claim to be against rape, yet they support women getting raped if they want women to be able to be conscripted, which they claim they want for equality.
We should also not forget that women have also advocated for the rape of enemy women, which is far more persuasive than a man saying the same thing.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Well, the main issue is that feminists claim to be against rape, yet they support women getting raped if they want women to be able to be conscripted, which they claim they want for equality.
We should also not forget that women have also advocated for the rape of enemy women, which is far more persuasive than a man saying the same thing.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Well, the main issue is that feminists claim to be against rape, yet they support women getting raped if they want women to be able to be conscripted, which they claim they want for equality.
We should also not forget that women have also advocated for the rape of enemy women, which is far more persuasive than a man saying the same thing.
You are missing the point. Yes, military service comes with the potential of injuries, mistreatment or even death - everybody knows that. Yet saying that "feminists support women getting raped" is exactly like saying "people support men getting tortured", just because this can happen as well, completely independent of gender.
Oh, and just to raise awareness concerning sexual abuse which you seem to think can only be inflicted on women ... those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were men.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Well, the main issue is that feminists claim to be against rape, yet they support women getting raped if they want women to be able to be conscripted, which they claim they want for equality.
We should also not forget that women have also advocated for the rape of enemy women, which is far more persuasive than a man saying the same thing.
Wow. You're really good at this aren't you?
People perceived to be advocating against their own interests are more persuasive. Women advocating rape would be perceived to be advocating against their own interests.
I know of this actually happening during WWII; I'm not just making hypotheticals.
mattyrm wrote:
If a soldier hasnt got the brains to know why we follow orders, then he has no business carrying a firearm.
As I said though, I am arrogant because I wasnt in a chicken gak outfit. I would not expect this type of sex issue to affect anyone I ever worked alongside, but perhaps it might be an issue for less well trained soldiers, such as national guardsmen.
Even with mercs (the definition of a chickenshit outfit, according to some on this board), this is not really an issue. 'Nasty Alice' would have us burying them up to their necks someplace and leave them. (Possibly literally)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Females going to a line platoon. Baron you know and I know that a line infantry platoon is not going to slack on the standards and basically try to break the officer. If an officer/NCO cannot make it within the platoon you and I know what will happen
I never said that standards should slack. I'm saying that, in the unlikely event that a woman should rise to the occasion and make the grade, under the current arraignment, she would be blocked from doing so, on the grounds she's a woman.
I'm not bitching too hard, because there's a growing number of good 'security consultants' who otherwise would have stayed with their respective armed forces and are now in the private sector because regulations have led to said military pissing away competent ncos.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote:I'm pretty sure that "getting killed" is against anyone's interest.
I think we can all agree that getting killed is quite possibly the third or fourth worst thing that can happen.
Combat Assualt Badge are awarded to non infantry. They recieved the CAB not the CIB.
Compare to the War College Report Lynata. No report today on female in combat line units can compare to the War College Report on african American back then. This was not a civilian report this was a military report prepared by army officers that had a huge impact at that time.
Ranger school is only open to combat MOS's in the Army
The physical exam was not an exam it was a PT test which is graded at the male 17-21 scale
min score is 60 is passing
so that would be 40 pushups 37 situps and under 15:54 for the two mile run
Their are two standard of the PT test for all military branches. Male and female. Thats a PT test. We're talking actual wear and tear of being a grunt and the stamina needed. Standards are across the board on that one.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Well, the main issue is that feminists claim to be against rape, yet they support women getting raped if they want women to be able to be conscripted, which they claim they want for equality.
We should also not forget that women have also advocated for the rape of enemy women, which is far more persuasive than a man saying the same thing.
Wow. You're really good at this aren't you?
People perceived to be advocating against their own interests are more persuasive. Women advocating rape would be perceived to be advocating against their own interests.
I know of this actually happening during WWII; I'm not just making hypotheticals.
That was 70 years ago.
People's attitudes have changed.
Though some women may advocate rape (For some reason) the vast majority would not.
To my knowledge feminists do not advocate rape, if you can bring me an example of a feminist advocating rape then your absurd argument may have a tiny bit of ground to stand on.
Until then please stop posting that feminists advocate rape... it makes you look extremely ignorant...
Jihadin wrote:
Their are two standard of the PT test for all military branches. Male and female. Thats a PT test. We're talking actual wear and tear of being a grunt and the stamina needed. Standards are across the board on that one.
I'm assuming the writer meant that they passed the 'male' version, based on the subject.
And, on the CIB, IIRC, any enlisted man or woman who has a Infantry or Spec Forces MOS who has "satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires." is also eligible. This would include Army cooks and medics, IIRC
And CAB is the Combat Action Badge, which is given out to non-infantry, in the Army. It's been around since 05 and was retroactively handed out for action since 9/11
Jihadin wrote:Are only awarded to 11B's Infantry.
Combat Assualt Badge are awarded to non infantry. They recieved the CAB not the CIB.
No, I think that was the whole point of it being mentioned in the first place. They were deployed as infantry. The article itself states that this badge is only awarded to infantry or special forces, so it doesn't sound like a mix-up on the author's part.
Jihadin wrote:Compare to the War College Report Lynata. No report today on female in combat line units can compare to the War College Report on african American back then. This was not a civilian report this was a military report prepared by army officers that had a huge impact at that time.
And why do you think that the War College Report had a "huge impact" back then when it only reinforced the bias upon which itself it was built? It should be obvious that the report was not objective or scientific in any way. Much like the BS some writers at the CMR have been churning out. This does not even have to do with one's occupation - army officers can be as biased as civilians, regardless of whether we're discussing gender or skin colour.
Jihadin wrote:The physical exam was not an exam it was a PT test which is graded at the male 17-21 scale
min score is 60 is passing
so that would be 40 pushups 37 situps and under 15:54 for the two mile run
And apparently that's what the women had passed, they were just barred from capitalizing on it because of their gender.
11 or 18 seris. Also the Stryker seris MOS's are only allowed the CIB since its their primary MOS's.
Jihandin, those are the ones able to receive it on a normal basis. However, as I said, however, any Army MOS can receive it if they are attached as Infantry (and perform the duties of said) as opposed to performing their regular duties. Since those 92Gs were attached as Infantry and preformed the said duty, they were eligible.
No they were not deployed as infantry. They were deployed as cooks as their primary MOS who slide into the combat role as infantry
The specific eligibility criteria for the CIB require that:
(1) A Soldier must be an Army Infantry or Special Forces officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of Colonel or below, or an Army Enlisted Soldier or Warrant Officer with an Infantry or Special Forces MOS, who subsequent to 6 December 1941 has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat. Eligibility for Special Forces personnel in Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) 18B, 18E, 18F, and 18Z (less Special Forces Medical Sergeant) accrues from 20 December 1989. Retroactive awards for Special Forces personnel are not authorized prior to 20 December 1989.
(2) A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy. The unit in question can be of any size smaller than brigade.
(3) Personnel with other than an Infantry or Special Forces MOS are not eligible, regardless of the circumstances. The Infantry or Special Forces SSI or MOS does not necessarily have to be the Soldier’s primary specialty, as long as the Soldier has been properly trained in infantry or special forces tactics, possesses the appropriate skill code, and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat as described above. Commanders are not authorized to make any exceptions to this policy.
CAB yes
III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY: The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.
(1) The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
(2) Specific Eligibility Requirements:
a. May be awarded to any soldier.
b. Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
c. Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
d. Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.
(3) May be awarded to members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign soldiers assigned to a U.S. Army unit, provided they meet the above criteria.
(4) Award of the CAB is authorized from 18 September 2001 to a date to be determined. Award for qualifying service in any previous conflict is not authorized.
No non combat MOS's have recieved the CIB to date.
Jihadin wrote:The specific eligibility criteria for the CIB require that:
You forgot:
(5) On or after 18 September 2001:
[...]
(e) Service members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign military (Infantry and Special Forces equivalents) assigned or attached as a member of a U.S. Army Infantry or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size may be considered for award of the CIB.
3) Personnel with other than an Infantry or Special Forces MOS are not eligible, regardless of the circumstances. The Infantry or Special Forces SSI or MOS does not necessarily have to be the Soldier’s primary specialty, as long as the Soldier has been properly trained in infantry or special forces tactics, possesses the appropriate skill code, and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat as described above. Commanders are not authorized to make any exceptions to this policy.
In the US ARMY
e) Service members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign military (Infantry and Special Forces equivalents) assigned or attached as a member of a U.S. Army Infantry or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size may be considered for award of the CIB
Jihadin wrote:No they were not deployed as infantry. They were deployed as cooks as their primary MOS who slide into the combat role as infantry
The specific eligibility criteria for the CIB require that:
(1) A Soldier must be an Army Infantry or Special Forces officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of Colonel or below, or an Army Enlisted Soldier or Warrant Officer with an Infantry or Special Forces MOS, who subsequent to 6 December 1941 has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat. Eligibility for Special Forces personnel in Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) 18B, 18E, 18F, and 18Z (less Special Forces Medical Sergeant) accrues from 20 December 1989. Retroactive awards for Special Forces personnel are not authorized prior to 20 December 1989.
(2) A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy. The unit in question can be of any size smaller than brigade.
(3) Personnel with other than an Infantry or Special Forces MOS are not eligible, regardless of the circumstances. The Infantry or Special Forces SSI or MOS does not necessarily have to be the Soldier’s primary specialty, as long as the Soldier has been properly trained in infantry or special forces tactics, possesses the appropriate skill code, and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat as described above. Commanders are not authorized to make any exceptions to this policy.
Ah, you are correct, my version is out of date.
They can, however, receive an EIB (and have) which does make me question the legitimacy of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote:
Apparently, there were cases where CIBs were handed out to non-infantry even before, by the way:
Some of the older versions of the regulation don't require the MOS. That's the stumbling block there.\
Ironically, the military has changed regs and stripped medals in the past. Mary Edwards Walker (a brevetted army surgeon), so far the only woman to be awarded the CMH, had her stripped retroactively when the regulations for recipt of one changed, and it took the actions of Jimmy Carter to restore it.
Look at provision 3 for the CIB and look at the time frame he was awarded the CIB. USAAF at that time had no planes so were reassigned to be infantry. The Imperial Japanese Army was coming down south and US/ally military units regardless of the unit type were assigned to a infantry division. On the job training literally as an infantryman so he recieved the identifier of 11B
Automatically Appended Next Post: EIB
AWARD ELIGIBILITY: Personnel must meet Department of the Army established testing requirements and must possess a military occupational specialty within Career Management Field 11 (Infantry) or 18 (Special Forces), less MOS 18D.
Provision 3 seems to have been dropped from the post-2001 requirements.
Of course it's just as possible that these CIBs were technically issued in error - according to this guy that can happen, and obviously the deployment of these female cooks in an infantry role was against the official policy already, so you may as well treat them accordingly.
Some female medics sense a whiff of sexism in the current rules. Spc. Sadie Harrison, 23, of the 557th Medical Company, spent more than half of her yearlong deployment attached to TF 1-7. Her ambulance once got hit by a roadside bomb, and she has treated patients under fire countless times.
Technically, she's ineligible because women aren't allowed to serve in combat units. But Cole nominated her for the CMB, and eventually she got it.
“My unit said, ‘You won't be able to wear it. You don't qualify,' ” Harrison said. “I'm sure it has a lot to do with [sexism], but nobody has the [guts] to say that.”
It does seem that some medics from ineligible units are finding a way to get the CMB, anyway. The former 1st ID commander, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, approved CMBs for eight medics (including Harrison) who served with 1st ID units. McLean, of the 1st ID's 299th FSB, has submitted 31 of his support medics for the award. Four have received them; the rest are awaiting a decision.
Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped.
No, they want women to be able to serve in combat.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
If the Germans, who everyone thinks were "civilized" for some reason, gang raped and killed every woman they captured, what do you think the bas****s we're fighting will do?
Gang rape them and kill them, what of it? The woman knew the risks going in, if she didn't she was foolish.
What you're doing right now is exhibiting the "damsel in distress" attitude Matty was talking about.
AWARD ELIGIBILITY: Personnel must meet Department of the Army established testing requirements and must possess a military occupational specialty within Career Management Field 11 (Infantry) or 18 (Special Forces), less MOS 18D.
Capt. Michelle Roberts, commander of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment
Despite having passed all the requirements, Captain Roberts will not be allowed to wear the medal, and was instead presented with a certification, as she is not permitted to join the front line infantry.
And this is the gak I am talking about. You can do anything a man can do, but you can't be given the same honors due to your lack of the correct genitalia.
My question, I suppose is this: if a woman can pass all the tests for an EIB, and a woman can earn the Silver Star, why on earth do we think they make inferior soldiers?
I hate to say it, but this does remind me of something. You won't find me agreeing with Mel a lot, but this time it's spot on. I hope that women in combat do not have to wait as long for proper recognition for valor and achievement that negros did. Of the seven men that the US Army determined had been unfairly denied a CMH due to race, only one lived to see them finally awarded.
Roberts, who is a military intelligence officer, received a certificate for meeting the EIB requirements, but will not be able to wear the badge because she comes from a non-combat arms branch. Lt. Col. Larry Murray, commander of the 2-60th, said he is proud of Roberts and all the Soldiers who tested for the EIB.
Lynata look into AR 600–8–22, US ARMY regulationhe
Expert Medical Badge is the equivalent of an EIB. Only medical personnel (medics) are allowed to try for it
Jihadin wrote:Roberts, who is a military intelligence officer, received a certificate for meeting the EIB requirements, but will not be able to wear the badge because she comes from a non-combat arms branch. Lt. Col. Larry Murray, commander of the 2-60th, said he is proud of Roberts and all the Soldiers who tested for the EIB.
Want to make a bet that if she'd ever been given the chance, she'd have made a damn good line infantry soldier?
I suppose it's pointless to argue this. It's like the old days, just with gender rather then race. 'Blacks don't make good soldiers so we keep them in rear echelon details." Well, how do you know they're not good soldiers? 'Well, you never hear of one winning a medal fighting the Germans.'
Sadly, this mindset led to seven black men being 'overlooked' for the CMH, a situation that was not corrected for 50+ years. And, sadly, I suspect that a lot of women will die denied the honors that their male equivalents received, due to the wording of regulations to ensure it.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Capt. Michelle Roberts, commander of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment
Despite having passed all the requirements, Captain Roberts will not be allowed to wear the medal, and was instead presented with a certification, as she is not permitted to join the front line infantry.
See, if she passed everything than Its ridiculous not to admit her, she earned it.
I would like it if a chick was as hard as me, I would tame her by duct taping a boxing glove to the end of a broom shank and goading her for 3-4 hours, then she would allow me to take her out and we could do some underwater knife fighting together on our first date, and then she could throw me into the back seat of her truck and feth me so aggressively the shocks would explode and my brains would liquidize and vibrate out of my ears.
I can't say since I don't fall under her command. She's a captain in MI who typicaly don't have 120+ soldiers in their company. If she placed now in an infantry company she will failed due to the lack of experience
Combat Medical Badge
III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY
The following medical personnel, assigned or attached by appropriate orders to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size, or to a medical unit of company or smaller size, organic to an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period the infantry unit is engaged in actual ground combat are eligible for award of the badge, provided they are personally present and under fire during such ground combat:
Expert Medical Badge
Comprehensive Written Test 60 multiple choice questions; 75% to pass. Army Physical Fitness Test Pass to standard. M16 or M4 Weapons Qualification Pass to standard within last 12 months. Land Navigation Day and night land navigation courses. Forced Road March 12-mile road march with a standard fighting load to be completed in three hours. Current CPR certification Tactical Combat Casualty Care Tasks Perform a TCCC patient assessment
Triage casualties
Control bleeding using a tourniquet, hemostatic device, and dressings
Initiate a saline lock and IV
Initiate treatment for hypovolemic shock & prevent hypothermia
Insert nasopharyngeal airway
Treat a penetrating chest wound
Perform needle chest decompression
Treat an open abdominal wound
Treat a casualty with an open head injury
Immobilize a suspected fracture of the arm
Treat eye lacerations/contusions/extrusions
Medical and Casualty Evacuation Tasks Evacuate a casualty using a SKED litter and litter carries
Evacuate casualties using one- or two-person carries or drags
Extricate a casualty from a vehicle
Establish a helicopter landing point
Load casualties onto a helicopter, ground evacuation platform, and two nonstandard vehicles
Warrior Skills Tasks Protect self from chem/bio contamination with protective mask
Decontaminate self with chemical decon kits
Protect self from CBRN injury or contamination with JSLIST gear
Store protective mask
Protect self from bio/chem contamination when removing JSLIST
Perform self-aid for mild nerve agent poisoning
Correct malfunction of M16 or M4
Disassemble, assemble, and perform functions check of an M9 pistol and an M16 (or M4) rifle
Move under direct fire, react to indirect fire, and react to an UXO or possible IED
Move over, through, and around obstacles
Communications Tasks (5 Tasks) Assemble and operate SINCGARS or SINCGARS (ASIP) w/o ANCD
Load FH/COMSEC data and conduct radio check using SINCGARS / SINCGARS (ASIP)
Prepare and Transmit a MEDEVAC request (All 9 lines) (No longer a Mandatory GO)
Submit an NBC 1 Report
Submit an Explosive Hazard Spot Report
I think the physical requirements for the Infantry are often exaggerated. I've met some tough SoBs that were 0311s, but I also have a friends that made it through SOI that are significantly weaker than me and have inferior endurance. Meeting the physical minimums is important, but I don't think they're so high as to be unattainable to properly prepared women.
I hear a lot about the standard 100lb+ load of kit, but I just don't find that believable. That reminds me of the bravado in boot when people claimed to be carrying 160lb loads.
According to http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf a M240 Machine Gunner carries an 81lb combat load. I don't know how 240s are deployed (weapons platoon?), but that's one of the heaviest combat loads for any billet. It's a good chunk of weight and it will slow you down a good bit, but it's not that much weight.
I think a big part of the problem is that nearly everyone outside of certain sports only trains the endurance aspect of their legs and does little to strengthen their back and legs which is critical for managing those loads.
mattyrm wrote:
See, if she passed everything than Its ridiculous not to admit her, she earned it.
My driver once said, when I asked why leave the military, just because you earned a medal doesn't mean that some donkey-cave officer can't claim it for himself somehow.
Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs
Loaded M4 is 7 lbs
UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs
9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded
I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs
Camelback filled with water 4 lbs
The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS
IFAK under a pound
Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window
ACH helmet over 3 LBS
PRC commo device under a pound
so far 65 lbs
Bipod on the M4
ACOG
Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire
Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B
Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far
We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)
So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.
Even Etools were brought
Two different environment. Training and combat operation
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also a M240 and M249 are assigned to squads...so figure one SAW per Squad and one M240B per two squads
Sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to imply. I thought you were referring to this bit:
(4) On or after 18 September 2001:
(a) Medical personnel assigned or attached to or under operational control of any ground Combat Arms units (not to include members assigned or attached to Aviation units) of brigade or smaller size, who satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in active ground combat, provided they are personally present and under fire.
I like the patch. The way it's loaded though, it's not a ton of weight. Some weak fat body with no training couldn't handle it, but I think nearly anyone could handle the load (barring preexisting medical issues). I think a bigger issue is mental strength.
Aviation is considered combat support. Also aviation has medivac units. A medic can be a assigned to a crew of a blackhawk in a regular assualt unit or assigned to a crew of an actual medivac Blackhawk. Either one will entitle him to the CMB once the aircraft lands to pick up wounded in a "hot" landing zone (pick up area under enemy fire) or while in flight since Blackhawks fly at 100 ft above ground
Medics are preassigned to a Chinook in case of a mass causulties incident will also be eligible for the CMB if they start taking fire either on ground or in flight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Amaya. Thats the joy of IOTV is that it can spread the load evenly over the body. Also it has a drawcord in it that seperates the front and back of the vest from the body so you don't drown in it to and for quick access to a trumatic wound to the upper body. I am also a firm believer of the groin protecter being that one of mine was hit in the balls from a richochet (sp)
The IBA that was being used back in 2008 would actually piss you off to no end because of the way it was designed
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually the velco pisses me off
My $0.02: It's a bad idea, but it doesn't surprise me. Most of the thread has been about physical standards and capabilities and I don't consider that the biggest hurdle. Ernst Junger wrote in "Storm of Steel" (one of my favorite books) that a big brawny guy who cowered at every shell burst wasn't worth even half as much as a small scrappy dude who could plug a dagger in a Frenchie's throat without a second thought (my paraphrasing).
IMO, the impact on unit cohesion caused by introducing individual or small numbers of females into an all-male unit is generally negative. More often than not, males look at them not as comrades in arms but as WOMEN who may or may not be available for sex.
There's been some posts about how the current perspective on females mirrors the previous one on African Americans. The key difference is that men from different backgrounds can relate to each other far more easily than men and women can. If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along. Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.
All this talk about equality should be totally irrelevant. Yes the military has been used as a petri dish for social experiments in the past and it has turned out okay. Still, I don't think it is a habit that we should get into. Unlike most science labs, failed experiments in this realm mean PEOPLE DIE.
At the end of the day, the military exists to fight and win wars. The questions that SHOULD be asked are "Does the inclusion of females in combat arms MOS's quantifiably enhance the organization's ability to fight and win?" and "Is such an inclusion an efficient use of our increasingly-limited national resources?"
I suspect that the answer lies buried deep in a Soviet archive somewhere: contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were masters of Military Science, and had the research and numbers to validate almost any hypothesis that could impact a total war. They also accumulated more combat man-hours -- and woman-hours -- than probably any other organization in human history. Their rapid elimination of female combat arms units/personnel should not be solely attributed to male misogyny and dismissed out of hand.
Likewise with Israel. You could argue that they have faced a continual existential threat to the nation since it's formation, which alone would justify the continued use of female infantrymen. The Caracal battalion is 70% female but, having not been used during the Lebanon conflict in 2006, has yet to be stress-tested in a major combat operation. So we are left to rely on their reports from 1948-56. I haven't read such primary sources myself, but numerous Internet (hah!) conversations indicate that the psychological impact on male soldiers from seeing female soldiers maimed/killed was magnitudes worse than usual with male casualties. This is a subject worth researching to get the real answer, and I'd consider it far more relevant to the discussion than pictures of chicks in bikinis with M4's slung on their backs.
If someone actually bothers to collect all the data and say "See, it does work" then fine, let 'em in. If they are that eager to get their limbs blown off then be my guest. It won't affect me. I believe our empire is in terminal decline, largely because of gender-normalizing feminist bullsh-- such as this issue. I'm doing what any sane man should do and voting with my feet, and my capital assets. I'm planning to not return to the United States after I get out of the Marine Corps, and will be constantly evaluating the benefits of retaining my US citizenship.
Oh, and a summary of my curriculum vitae for added legitimacy:
active US Army POG (gender-mixed unit, 1yr Korea @ an Air Force base)
Florida National Guard infantryman (2 females @ Bn)
USMC The Basic School (infantry-centric gender-mixed training, 6 months)
USMC Infantry Officers Course (all male, finished 90% of the 3 months, boarded for marginal performance, opted to reclassify instead of recycle)
USMC Aircraft Command & Control (gender-mixed, been here in Okinawa a year so far)
Other than missing that great big checkmark of "time in the sandbox" I think I've got a decently wide spread of experience across two branches of service, active and reserve, combat arms and not, enlisted and officer.
Jihadin wrote:Aviation is considered combat support. Also aviation has medivac units. A medic can be a assigned to a crew of a blackhawk in a regular assualt unit or assigned to a crew of an actual medivac Blackhawk. Either one will entitle him to the CMB once the aircraft lands to pick up wounded in a "hot" landing zone (pick up area under enemy fire) or while in flight since Blackhawks fly at 100 ft above ground
Yes, well, according to this, Aviation = no CMB.
You either have to be assigned/attached directly to the infantry unit, or attached to or under operational control of any ground Combat Arms units - unless you were assigned to an Aviation unit, in which case you're SOL and won't get the badge.
I thought it was this controversy which would have led people to believe that the CMB is harder to get than it may actually be (see the article). Provided you do actually think that this medic being awarded the CMB was nothing special and perfectly in line with existing regs. Your post ("look up XYZ") wasn't very informative concerning what you wanted to express.
I hear a lot about the standard 100lb+ load of kit, but I just don't find that believable. That reminds me of the bravado in boot when people claimed to be carrying 160lb loads.
While at The Basic School I had friends that would weigh their ILBE's before we went to the field. They were consistently 80-95lbs. This was the typical load that we humped for our 9-mile and 12-mile hikes. Combine that with Jihadin's combat load and your at 140-150lbs. We were rained on for two days straight before we did the 9-mile to return from the field exercise, turning everyone's previously-conditioned hike feet into soft mush. So many people fell out on the side of the road with injuries and ended up at medical that there was a command investigation into why our instructors were breaking Lieutenants on what should have been a normal conditioning hike. I didn't find out about the investigation until a friend who became a Legal officer told me later. Our company had a married couple in it, and at Mess Night they called out the husband, pretty much calling him a b-tch in front of the whole company, because he fell out of the 9-mile while his wife didn't. Our 12-mile in dry conditions was nowhere near as casualty-producing.
While at the Infantry Officers Course we regularly moved through the treeline with the above loads. For the last exercise I did, our loads were worse. IOC is an understrength infantry company (2 rifle platoons, about 80 hard chargers) but we carried our own MGs, mortars, SMAWs, and engineering equipment (including numerous rolls of concertina wire) like a full-sized unit. I carried a mortar baseplate in one hand and the optics box in the other and just let my M4 hang across my chest. Other guys had MG tripod bags thrown over one shoulder (like a rifle at left-shoulder arms), or SMAW launchers strapped to the sides of their ILBE's with a pick-axe on the other side. IMO you can't even think straight when trying to move encumbered like that.
Do units conduct combat patrols with 150lbs of gear? I doubt it.
Do units conduct foot movements in theater with 150lbs of gear? Possibly.
Do TRAINING CENTERS put people through initial entry training with 150lbs of gear? Clearly.
Is it stupid to do so? Absolutely. Light infantry my ass.
The medic assigned to the aero-medivac company of the aviation support battalion of the combat aviation
brigade is not eligible for award of the CMB. The medic assigned to the combat aviation brigade headquarters is eligible for award of the CMB,
provided he/she performs medical duties under fire while the unit is engaged in active ground combat.
KK thanks for pointing that out. You are correct in them not recieving the CMB while in flight. On ground waiting to load while taking fire was the key. That pretty much involve the overwatch of Apache's from the BDE that engages the enemy. Thats explains more clearly then how our medics got theirs way back in the days. DA form 638 is used for Recommendation for Awards. Trick is how to key the words to fit the criteria
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Noble. I'm looking at 90-120 max. The only other thing I can think to go over to 140-160 is taking the heavy weaponry IE mortars, 50 cal, etc etc. Only thing that would require all that is establishing a COP (Company Outpost) but then thats moving it off the aircraft to the ground. Example be the platoon from 173rd establishing KOP which took a good chunk of aviation asset
Noble713 wrote:Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.
I'd like to point out in my own experience that this part is not universal. I've seen male and female crews work just as well together as with all one gender or the other. Granted, we all seemed to talk about food, what we were going to do with our pay, a nice bath, and some ideas for improvements to Náströnd and Alice's Revenge if/when we got back to someplace with a decent machine shop. (Granted, some of these were not only impractical, but very silly, on reflection. It also shows that gearheads come with and without male parts.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Noble713 wrote:
Do units conduct combat patrols with 150lbs of gear? I doubt it.
Do units conduct foot movements in theater with 150lbs of gear? Possibly.
Do TRAINING CENTERS put people through initial entry training with 150lbs of gear? Clearly.
Is it stupid to do so? Absolutely. Light infantry my ass.
Agreed. I'm a big fan of 'strap it to the outside and drive there'.
What they ought to do before they even bring it into the combat theater. Is test it out at Camp Greaves, South Korea. All male post (infantry company) but its Army
Jihadin wrote:What they ought to do before they even bring it into the combat theater. Is test it out at Camp Greaves, South Korea. All male post (infantry company) but its Army
An aside: Fort Benning might also be a worthwhile spot to test the idea for non-footsloggers.
Noble713 wrote:There's been some posts about how the current perspective on females mirrors the previous one on African Americans. The key difference is that men from different backgrounds can relate to each other far more easily than men and women can. If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along.
Not if you'd have done that "back then", obviously.
I'm fairly sure that in ~1925, many white men could more easily relate to white women than black men.
Noble713 wrote:Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.
Have you ever actually served in a unit that consisted of both male and female soldiers or are these just your assumptions?
Noble713 wrote:I suspect that the answer lies buried deep in a Soviet archive somewhere: contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were masters of Military Science, and had the research and numbers to validate almost any hypothesis that could impact a total war. They also accumulated more combat man-hours -- and woman-hours -- than probably any other organization in human history. Their rapid elimination of female combat arms units/personnel should not be solely attributed to male misogyny and dismissed out of hand.
Actually, this "elimination" - which was by no means rapid nor total - was due to declining birthrates in the 50s and the realization that the Soviets' universal draft (targeting girls the age of 19-25) affected the very same women that would otherwise become mothers (fertility rates amongst Russian women at that time having been the greatest at ages 20-29).
Nowadays, there are even thoughts about (re-)introducing conscription for women into Russia's army. Currently, female soldiers make up about 10% of Russia's armed forces, including frontline combat units such as infantry and airborne. Just a few years back, on direct order of the President, a new elite boarding school was opened in Moscow, training young girls age 11 and up as cadets for the police, the military and the security service.
Noble713 wrote:I believe our empire is in terminal decline, largely because of gender-normalizing feminist bullsh-- such as this issue.
And here we've come to the crux of the problem.
But perhaps your "empire" is in decline because it has become so slow to adopt certain social changes, compared to the rest of the world?
Testify wrote:Or, you know. Because the rest of the world figured out how to do capitalism.
*looks at the EU*
... naaaah. Not really.
The world outside of the west, I mean.
Also "the EU" is pretty misleading. You could point at Awkensaw and West Virginia and say that the US economy is worthless, no different than pointing at Greece or Portugal.
That tells me he's an officer. Not in his advance course yet so 01-02 maybe a 03.
Noble made a very good point in camaderie. Its essential in team building. Yes the RAND report is correct in military unit readiness but remember he (I agree) by first hand knowledge know what can of idiotic behavoir some young troops will have (including junior and senior NCO's and officers). The first issue will be sexual harassement and sexual assualt. That does indeed screws up a unit since depending on who...say a senior NCO the integerty of the NCO is compromised be it a true or false accusation till the investigation is done. Another thing about the RAND investigation what units were interviewed?
While 91 percent of all Navy positions are open to women, current plans call for about 13 percent of the shipboard bunks to be for female berthing. Thus, the number of positions that could simultaneously be filled by women is less than 91 percent.
Pretty much tells me it was conducted in the Navy
The perception of double standards was held most widely by men and tended to revolve around such things as different physical standards and a perceived unwillingness of male leaders to demand as much of women as they do of men. Finally, dating and sexual relationships, even those not forbidden by the regulations, can create morale problems within a unit.
Perception is a mofo. CoC credibility is lowered due to actions that might be viewed as favoritism
Yes we get daily classes on EO but you will always have some chuklehead that will think they get away with it.
Yes I have served in units with males and females. I'm also a EOA for my unit. (Equal Oppurtunity Advisor)
edit
love Europe. It's great. I'd love to have the money to buy a Leopard II.
Baron I know why you want that tank.....make sure you have enough cash left over to get prime real estate to drive amok in
Using multiple methods (i.e., interviews, surveys, focus groups) to assess effects on units, this study found that gender integration has had a relatively small effect on readiness, cohesion, and morale. This is not to say that it has no effect; it does. However, other influences, such as leadership, are perceived by those interviewed and surveyed as being far more influential.
Readiness
When compared with the effects of training, operational tempo, leadership, and materiel, gender is not perceived as affecting readiness. Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. In terms of the quality of women, the majority of officers and experienced enlisted personnel surveyed asserted that women perform about as well as men do.
Cohesion
Any divisions caused by gender were minimal or invisible in units with high cohesion. Gender was reported as a secondary issue in units that had conflicting groups, and then it took a back seat to divisions along work group or rank lines. When it was perceived as having a negative effect, it was generally because gender is one way that people break into categories when conflict surfaces, because structures or organizational behavior highlight gender differences, or because dating occurs within a unit. Not all gender effects are negative. The presence of women was also cited as raising the level of professional standards.
Morale
Gender did not figure prominently into issues that respondents cited as affecting morale. Leadership was regarded as the overwhelming influence. Insofar as gender was an issue, it surfaced in two areas: sexual harassment and double standards. In contrast to some highly publicized recent incidents, most of those surveyed reported that sexual harassment is not occurring in their units. Of the women who have been harassed (and considerable confusion exists about what constitutes sexual harassment), most do not report it. Typically, they regard such incidents as minor and handle them on their own. Less frequently cited reasons for not reporting include a fear of overreaction by the institution, resulting in severe punishment of the offender; a fear of backlash from coworkers; a belief that such reports weaken the case for women in the military; and a belief that nothing will happen to the offender. The perception of double standards was held most widely by men and tended to revolve around such things as different physical standards and a perceived unwillingness of male leaders to demand as much of women as they do of men. Finally, dating and sexual relationships, even those not forbidden by the regulations, can create morale problems within a unit.
Other Gender Effects
The study also provided insight into other gender issues currently prominent in the public debate. The majority of the men and women who participated in the study favor integrated basic training. However, some do prefer segregated training (25 and 39 percent, respectively, for women and men). While a small percentage (14 and 18 percent, respectively, for men and women) favored concentrating women in fewer units, the rest were split between assigning women across all units or having a gender-blind assignment process. When it comes to reporting harassment, most participants do not care whether they report to a man or a woman. But 22-35 percent do have a preference, most often preferring to report to someone of the same sex. More than half the enlisted men favor some relaxation of the combat exclusion rule, but only one third of the male officers support such a change. More than 80 percent of the women support a change, but they differ over whether service in combat positions should be voluntary.
Jihadin wrote:
Baron I know why you want that tank.....make sure you have enough cash left over to get prime real estate to drive amok in
The PSO variant's close in surveillance system gives the commander a near 360 of the tank without having to open a hatch. I hear nothing but good things about it from my Canadian contacts.
And then there's this:
All I have to say is that has got to be hard on the road wheels.
Beats the gak out of the ol' 13/105 (I keep hoping the Peruvians do some of those upgrades so a few can be lost in shipping )
Noble713 wrote:If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along.
I find it much easier to relate to women with a background similar to mine than I do to men from very different backgrounds. There's a reason all my high school friends that work blue collar jobs are no longer friends, we simply have no basis for a relationship.
The reason the men in your example get along isn't because they're men, its because of esprit de corps and common experience.
Noble713 wrote:
Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.
Why can't they relate? My best friend is female, and we used to brag to each other about sexual escapades and getting drunk all the time. We're both straight, though she dabbled on the other side in the way college girls often do, but the major points of relationship were a common educational experience and a similar take on social interaction.
Most women like drinking and sex just as much as most men. Or, to use a colloquialism, "Girls talk."
Noble713 wrote:
Yes the military has been used as a petri dish for social experiments in the past and it has turned out okay.
How is this a social experiment? Women either serve in combat, or they don't. This isn't like having coed dormitories, its a unique situation involving a unique institutional culture.
Noble713 wrote:
At the end of the day, the military exists to fight and win wars. The questions that SHOULD be asked are "Does the inclusion of females in combat arms MOS's quantifiably enhance the organization's ability to fight and win?" and "Is such an inclusion an efficient use of our increasingly-limited national resources?"
You're partially correct. Its not a matter of enhancement, its a matter of detraction. If including women in combat units negatively impacts the ability of the unit to function in a significant manner, then it shouldn't be done. Any positive effect is incidental.
There's also issues of political will which, while I'm sure you would dismiss them, are relevant because the military is subservient to the civilian population (theoretically).
Jihadin wrote:Perception is a mofo. CoC credibility is lowered due to actions that might be viewed as favoritism
Absolutely, but
#1 you don't need women for that
#2 once people adapt to the idea of seeing women as equals, there should be little change to the current conditions
I do realize that it may be troublesome for some units, in that (depending on their esprit du corps and discipline) they might face difficulties adapting to this new situation - but these difficulties result solely out of currently cultivated societal values, such as "women don't belong in the infantry". Just like back then people thought "Blacks don't belong in the military". And look what happened.
I'm sure that women will - and have! remember that you already have female soldiers, just not everywhere - face the very same issues as black servicemen back then, but eventually society will adapt once people get their heads wrapped around the idea that a soldier is a soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender, skin colour, or sexual preferences. Because that's exactly what happened in Germany.
That story with the medic who received the Silver Star for bravery in combat is rather troublesome. To think that whoever she was helping would have died if she wouldn't have been there just because policies forbid it. Remember, that infantry unit only took her with them because there was no-one else available. I can't wrap my head around the idea that soldiers would have to die because women who'd be capable of doing so aren't allowed to step up.
Testify wrote:The world outside of the west, I mean.
Also "the EU" is pretty misleading. You could point at Awkensaw and West Virginia and say that the US economy is worthless, no different than pointing at Greece or Portugal.
Good point. It's also not as bad. Could be better, though.
Generally, I don't see capitalism working out all that great in general though. From what I understand, most of today's economies are built upon steady expansion, and I think the theory of infinite growth is BS. And as soon as you have someone starting to hoard the money, the cycle breaks down because people's budgets have a negative effect on demand.
Oh well, we'll see where we go from here, I guess.
BaronIveagh wrote:I love Europe. It's great. I'd love to have the money to buy a Leopard II.
They're fun. I had the opportunity to sit in one as they took it out for a test drive after maintenance in the German Army's Combat Training Centre in Saxony-Anhalt. I've been working there for two years for a civilian contractor - one of the most adventurous jobs I had so far. The army was training for just about everything there, from tank battles to CQC to riot control, some units even trained stuff they weren't officially allowed to. Here's a cool vid.
dogma wrote:Why can't they relate? My best friend is female, and we used to brag to each other about sexual escapades and getting drunk all the time. We're both straight, though she dabbled on the other side in the way college girls often do, but the major points of relationship were a common educational experience and a similar take on social interaction.
Most women like drinking and sex just as much as most men. Or, to use a colloquialism, "Girls talk."
I think some people aren't aware that these days, the behavorial differences between men and women - originally the product of upbringing and cultural indoctrination - aren't as big as they used to be.
"Gasp! Women playing FPS instead of knitting and dancing?!"
I can't wrap my head around the idea that soldiers would have to die because women who'd be capable of doing so aren't allowed to step up.
BUT SHE HAVE A VAGOO AND DOES NOT HAz A PANEZ!
SHE MUST BE tEH EVULz!
Jokes aside, that's the same way I feel about DADT-- so many good soldiers lost because of a bunch of bigots, to the detriment of the military as a whole.
Lynata wrote:Not if you'd have done that "back then", obviously.
I'm fairly sure that in ~1925, many white men could more easily relate to white women than black men.
Back when the life experience of most women rarely extended beyond cooking, cleaning, and maybe fashion? In the absence of racial/gender/etc. bias it would be even more difficult to relate back then compared to now. The hobbies/interests of men and women overlap far more now than in 1925 (gamer chicks, anyone?).
Lynata wrote:Have you ever actually served in a unit that consisted of both male and female soldiers or are these just your assumptions?
I covered that in a previous post, but to reiterate: I've served in 4 operational units: 2 mixed-gender active Army while enlisted, 1 all-male National Guard while enlisted, and currently 1 mixed-gender active Marine Corps as an officer.
Nowadays, there are even thoughts about (re-)introducing conscription for women into Russia's army. Currently, female soldiers make up about 10% of Russia's armed forces, including frontline combat units such as infantry and airborne. Just a few years back, on direct order of the President, a new elite boarding school was opened in Moscow, training young girls age 11 and up as cadets for the police, the military and the security service.
I Google searched for "female Russian military casualties Chechnya" with negligible results. Which of these female-heavy infantry/airborne units have actually conducted extensive combat operations? Signs point to "none". In the process, though, I found this article:
http://www.opencanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SD-01-Thompson.pdf He talks about Yugoslavia in the present tense so it's clearly and older article, but here's some choice quotes:
"Women appeared to perform well as individuals; where social cohesion is a requirement their performance suffered."
"Women soon became a liability in combat units. Men were anxious to avoid situations where women might be captured. In integrated units Israeli soldiers -- some of them hardened survivors of concentration camps -- temporarily lost some of their effectiveness when females were killed or maimed. An all female unit that took very heavy casualties in a failed assault saw neighboring male units take more casualties while dragging injured or dead women off the battlefield than would have been the case for dead and injured males."
"It would appear that the presence of women has an adverse effect on the social cohesion required for units on the battlefield. "
"It can be inferred that their prior experience has led them to the conclusion that single gender units and mixed gender units represent too dangerous a loss in battlefield efficiency to be continued."
Wow, imagine that. Some guy I've never even heard of already made my argument 20+ years ago.
Lynata wrote:
But perhaps your "empire" is in decline because it has become so slow to adopt certain social changes, compared to the rest of the world?
If anything our empire is in decline because it was *fast* to adopt certain social changes. It'll probably take another 20-40 years to compare to more paternal, socially conservative yet technologically progressive and innovative industrialized nation states and say "Yup, that's where we went wrong." But I think the writing is on the wall. I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole right now but in a nutshell:
1. Much of America's success as an industrial power can be attributed to STEM-educated males pushing technological innovation.
2. The increase of women in college dumped a bunch of non-STEM educated employees into the workforce who are not engines of technical innovation but still expect comparable compensation. "Deadweight loss" isn't really the term I'm looking for but "economic inefficiency" is close enough.
3. Working women also atrophied the social support network of housewives that working men need to operate stable and successful families, leading to a decline in the quality of upbringing for follow-on generations.
4. Many of said women are now educating our youth, and surprise surprise, American competitiveness in science and math is abysmal. America's brain drain on the rest of the world is largely what keeps us afloat and compensates for the general retardation of the native population.
And it's not like women *can't* do STEM, or haven't "had the opportunity" either (the usual excuse for poor performance, typically used by my fellow minorities in an economic context). I know because my mother graduated with a Math degree around 1970, and has been a computer programmer/software architect ever since. She is the exception rather than the norm, though, as I'd say that's pretty unusual for a black woman even 40 years later. I would argue that chicks don't do STEM because they don't have a genetic/biological disposition to it. There is nothing *wrong* with this state of affairs, because men and women are different. The fundamental problem is that at some point in time some idiot decided that "equal" means "of exactly equal proportions and representation in all fields". Odd that I never see women complaining about the dearth of female coal miners, or garbage truck drivers. Seems they only want the prestigious stuff, like corporate CEO and war hero, and ignore all the other gak jobs that the *rest* of the male population does so that at least some of us can do cool stuff.
Noble713 wrote:
2. The increase of women in college dumped a bunch of non-STEM educated employees into the workforce who are not engines of technical innovation but still expect comparable compensation. "Deadweight loss" isn't really the term I'm looking for but "economic inefficiency" is close enough.
Right around 50% of all STEM degrees (BA, MA, PhD) go to women, at least if you use the NELS definition. The gap is in the hiring process, not education.
Possible that women are to enter ranger school in 2013. Now thats going to be interesting. If they maintain the same standards or lower it. Will "Peered Out" still be in effect or not. Will the instructor have justify his dismissal of a female unit to a higher chain of command. 60+ days left before verdict on how this pandora box is going to go.
Lynata wrote:I think some people aren't aware that these days, the behavorial differences between men and women - originally the product of upbringing and cultural indoctrination - aren't as big as they used to be.
That's what the feminists have brainwashed into the past 2-3 generations of Westerners. It's wrong. Male and female psychology is still radically different, and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. I spent 27 years believing the same crap before I took the red pill and had my eyes opened. More importantly, I've personally applied specific tactics, techniques, and procedures to maximize my personal benefit from the irrational reproductive urges of females, and done so with quantifiable results.
If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?
http://tinyurl.com/7pwvs8u
Why are divorce rates (>50% in the US), which are initiated by women ~70% of the time, so high?
)
) is at home, and it could cause huge stress related problems if they were suddenly cut off...
Unless the women can meet the same physical requirements as the men, in the same gear, with the same training, then they can go back to being secretaries, making sandwiches, and farting out beautiful, screaming children. 
