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.

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?

That said, on the topic of studies supporting women in the infantry there is this:
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/06/women-in-combat-as-resilient-as-men-study-finds
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/18/women-in-combat-the-debate-begins-anew/

This bit is rather telling:

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.

Wow. You're really good at this aren't you?

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.

Chongara wrote:

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.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Women advocating rape would be perceived to be advocating against their own interests.

I'm pretty sure that "getting killed" is against anyone's interest.

Guess that means the army should dissolve and everyone should go home.

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 Infantryman Badge

Are only awarded to 11B's Infantry.

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.

It's very simple. There is a test.

Men who don't pass it are not accepted because they lack the necessary fitness.

Women who do pass it are not accepted because they lack the necessary fitness.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Chongara wrote:

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

who has a Infantry or Spec Forces MOS

11 or 18 seris. Also the Stryker seris MOS's are only allowed the CIB since its their primary MOS's.


edit
Have my CAB badge mixed up
Combat Assualt badge is germany WWII
Combat Action Badge is US in play now

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.

Here's one from the DoD:
http://www.defense.gov/news/WISR_Report_to_Congress.pdf

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.

Kilkrazy summed it up nicely.

Jihadin wrote:

who has a Infantry or Spec Forces MOS

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.

Chongara wrote:Wow. You're really good at this aren't you?

Yeah, he is. So ignore him. He has nothing worth responding to anyway.

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

Not in the US ARMY

I took "other U.S. Armed Forces" to mean "other than U.S. Army Infantry or Special Forces", since that is how that segment ends.

Your point (3) does not even appear on the revamped "after September 18th" list of requirements anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Infantryman_Badge#Award_eligibility

Apparently, there were cases where CIBs were handed out to non-infantry even before, by the way:

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.

BaronIveagh wrote:Some of the older versions of the regulation don't require the MOS. That's the stumbling block there.

Ah, requirements were changed several times then?

What about the one post-2001, they seem to have dropped the "may never be awarded to [...]" thingie.

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.

Seems to be the same with the CMB: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_100305_CMB.html

Getting the badge anyway

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.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I agree.

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.

Jihadin wrote:
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.

http://www.army.mil/article/54134/

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.

Then I would sob and tell her I loved her..

Jihadin wrote:Lynata look into AR 600–8–22, US ARMY regulationhe

Do I read this right in that if the medic arrives by truck, he can receive the badge - but if he arrives by helo, then he won't?

Sheesh, and I thought the German Armed Forces had weird regulations.

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