Female marine officer says women don't belong in the infantry

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**mattyrm**

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!

**IcyCool**

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.

If this was already answered, please disregard.

**Jihadin**

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?

**BaronIveagh**

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?

**Jihadin**

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

**Frazzled**

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...

**mattyrm**

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?

**Lynata**

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**

Lynata wrote:
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.

**Lynata**

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.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Grey Templar**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Lynata wrote:And FRAG-12. Closest you'll get to a real life boltgun!

Eh... not really. The MK 19 is the closest you can get to a boltgun.

More like a Heavy Bolter.

**Lynata**

BaronIveagh wrote:While many posters will immediately scream 'but we have overwhelming air power'

For some reason, 'Nam springs to mind now.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Jihadin**

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.

**Lynata**

Jihadin wrote:Not "Nam" its "Shock and Awe"

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.

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
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...)

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Jihadin**

http://www.armoryblog.com/firearms/cost-equipping-soldier/

link to what it cost to equip a soldier from WWII on up

**Frazzled**

Lynata wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Not "Nam" its "Shock and Awe"
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.

**Amaya**

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.

**Jihadin**

Politician was actually setting mission goals for the military commander. IE what we can bomb in one day we can't bomb the next.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:http://www.armoryblog.com/firearms/cost-equipping-soldier/

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.

SOunds eerily familiar doesn't it?

**Amaya**

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.

**Jihadin**

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

**dogma**

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.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Jihadin**

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)

**Amaya**

I thought a M249 ran more like 5k a pop.