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.

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

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

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

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

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


Good to know.

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

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

Yes I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet you go on the attack on me.

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

No, I attacked what you posted.

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

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

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

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

Good to know.

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

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


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

It is a perfectly valid interpretation of your post.

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

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

Here's some examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jihadin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refering to Kursk?

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


not one step backwards!

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


not one step backwards!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistical anomaly.

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

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

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

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

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

Jihadin wrote:Refering to Kursk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

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

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

Obviously!

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

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

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

Well.. almost.

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

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