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: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.

Absolutely. They can influence the readiness of individuals to do so, though. A lot depends on trust, I think - as well as people having a "feeling" for what is right and wrong. I imagine lots of silly stuff may remain unpunished because of an atmosphere downplaying the significance of incidents. And then there's the sad fact that some reports are just not followed up on. Granted, this I only heard in connection with certain cases of prisoner abuse, but if some officers disregard that, it's a small step to disregarding reports of abuse between soldiers.

Actually, scratch that, I have read of ignored reports about abuse between soldiers, but that was a thing between men, and it was 1980. A German article I stumbled upon months ago out of mere coincidence, about serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, or more accurately about a guy called Billy Capshaw who happened to be his room mate as they both served in the Army: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/24364/leben_mit_dem_menschenfresser.html

Quick 'n dirty translation from one of the segments - creepy stuff:

"Ten years ago, as Billy Capshaw arrived in the US garrison in German Baumholder, the new medic came upon pure chaos. "It was crazy. The Army still hadn't recovered from Vietnam - most of the soldiers were drunk every evening", he remembers on the website survivingjeffreydahmer.org, on which he later publicized the notes he made during his therapy. In this oppressive environment, the pudgy 17 year old medic Capshaw needed nothing more than an ally. At first, he seemed to have found him in his roommate Dahmer, senior by three years and the only other soldier who hadn't been to Vietnam. 'At first he seemed like a really nice guy. He had charisma.'

Capshaw couldn't know that his roommate had an obsession gutting cats and dogs as a child because this gave him a feeling of power. He also did not knew that Dahmer started to have fantasies of sexual violence at 14. Most of all, Capshaw did not know that the man with whom he now shared a room had picked up the hitchhiker Steven Hicks, lured him to his home, slayed him with a barbell, cut him into pieces and buried his remains in the yard just one and a half years earlier.

After a few days, the friendly facade of his roommate began to crumble: Dahmer tried more and more to control him, began to beat him. Capshaw complained to his superiors - but these only laughed at him, called him a "pussy". Dahmer started to isolate him systematically, having the only key to the room and keeping Capshaw under watch. When Dahmer left the room, he locked his roommate in. Calls and letters he intercepted just as much as Capshaw's pay. The superiors ignored everything, as Capshaw bewilderedly recalls: 'I never appeared to exercises. I never did the jobs I was assigned to. Still I got promoted.'

Dahmer became more and more violent. Soon it did not suffice to pummel his victim just with fists anymore, so he took a steel bar from his bedstead to beat him - on the fingers, against the tibia, but most of all on the joints, as this hurt the most. Whenever Billy was injured so badly that he had to be brought to the infirmary, his tormentor did this himself. There, he appeared so calm and convincing that the doctors believed his assertions that he would merely watch out for his friend and was not the cause of these injuries - even though Capshaw claimed the opposite."


Now, this was 30 years ago, and I choose not to believe that this would be possible today. A lot has changed since then, from morale to guidelines to training. What I'm criticizing is not the policies or safeguards in place. What I'm criticizing is that all of them don't mean much when the chain breaks somewhere in the middle because Captain John Random files a report in his bin.

Obviously, there are ways to circumvent the direct report and bring attention to an incident if one feels as if he or she is being ignored. But the mere need to do so still affects the air of trust and interpersonal cameraderie, the latter of which can further affect the willingness of soldiers to report something. The police force faces the very same problems. A lot of private companies too, I reckon. It's one of the few negative aspects of esprit du corps, and the only way to deal with this is nurturing a more open and more tolerant culture and atmosphere. Where "masculinity" and comradeship aren't confused with the need to fall in line and keep quiet even when something very wrong is going on.

Don't ask me for the best ways to accomplish this, though. It's a very complicated topic. If reports from female soldiers are to be believed, however, it gets better with time. It doesn't take much to assume that black people faced similar issues when they were new in these positions. Discrimination is a wound in the fabric of society, but a wound that can heal with time.

Jihadin wrote:Females are not enhancers to unit readiness/efficiency.

According to some reports they are.
Ironically, this time, masculinity seems to have an involuntarily positive effect - dedicated female soldiers are often said to work twice as hard because they feel this helps them getting accepted, and on the flipside you may have some male soldiers becoming "infected" with this competitive spirit and trying to "save face" by not showing signs of weakness in front of a girl who is able to keep up. The end result would seem to benefit the unit as a whole, though of course like with any competition there are certain dangers associated with taking it too far.

I'd say this effect is likely to diminish as time passes, however, as it is based on the very same "women = weaker" generalisation that the very idea of females in the military seems to attack. I suppose it would fade into the background at about the same time as the whole idea of male soldiers supposedly reacting when witnessing a female's death. Which I still am somewhat sceptical towards, given that violence of military forces against women is a consistent theme throughout the history of warfare. If there was some sort of genetical gender-based switch supposedly granting females immunity or clemency, it obviously doesn't work very well in an environment of troops trained to kill the enemy.

But then, there also is the factor of finding the right people for the right job. This has less to do with females, but more with tapping unused manpower resources in general. If you want the best people for your force, limiting any applicants by categories as arbitrary as gender obviously results in a smaller pool of candidates - meaning you might miss out on top candidates, meaning that this unit will not operate at the same level of efficiency it could with increased recruitment.

Jihadin wrote: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.

That was, again, referring to that medic who got the Silver Star - she got pulled out because she worked in a role she's officially not supposed to (as women supposedly aren't capable of doing what she did). I don't like parading her around as if she'd be the sole example, but maybe you just missed it.

Jihadin wrote:the above seems you mixing up a "combat role" to a "combat MOS"

Hmmh, you've got a point there - but then again, to me it looks as if there is little difference between the two nowadays? I know how it's supposed to be officially, but the policy seems to go the way of any plan, to borrow from Clausewitz.

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat. Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being 'assigned', women are 'attached in direct support of' the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.
"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."
-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002_3.html

The distinction between combat role and combat MOS is a technicality. Policies intending to justify women for one but ban the other are, I think, just manifestations of the same BS conservative traditionalist-protectionist attitude that keep erupting about things like that damn CIB, because apparently the unit you belong to says more about your right to wear this than what you have actually done in combat. The military needs more equality - not just in questions of gender or sexual preference, but also concerning how the various branches regard each other. There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of pride and even rivalry between the branches (I've experienced and had fun with it myself), but at some point it becomes petty and ridiculous. For the CIB, I think a more comradely reaction would have been to say "this guy has earned the honour to be a honorary member of our club" rather than going "he's no Infantry, he shouldn't be allowed to wear it!"

mattyrm wrote: I mean, sure they aren't as strong or fast, but Girls can be as smart as men.
Well.. almost.

Funny development, actually - after decades of coming in behind men, then slowly catching up, this year women have for the first time surpassed the male average!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html?ITO=1490
I'd chalk it up to women now being able to experience the same "mind-encouraging" activities as men, so they develop more equally. Not exactly sure what led them to coming out on top - could be coincidence, or women actually exposing themselves more than men to said experiences now. See also what Mel wrote->

Melissia wrote: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.

I suppose intelligence just isn't "masculine" enough.
(assuming that "masculinity" is a concept still propagated as an ideal for everyone to achieve)

[edit] Wow, didn't realize how large this monster of text has become. Sorry all!

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.

Correlation does not equal causation, and your sentence contradicts itself in the second half.

Now, this was 30 years ago, and I choose not to believe that this would be possible today. A lot has changed since then, from morale to guidelines to training. What I'm criticizing is not the policies or safeguards in place. What I'm criticizing is that all of them don't mean much when the chain breaks somewhere in the middle because Captain John Random files a report in his bin.

That was complete failure on his NCO. Hell I'm not sure I can call him a NCO (the guy in charge of Capshaw and Dahlmar). If he was going straight to the officers over the issue that means "jumping the chain of command" which is not a good thing. I lay this one directly at the feet of the NCO. I also though had one do it to me (jumping the chain of command") that made me madder in Hell when I got called to the carpet and blindsided with the issue. The pause between the professional ass chewing I was getting gave me enough time to look at my soldier and ask "When were you going to tell me?". Professional ass chewing slide to him now. A lot have changed from then to now. Its the individual and NCO that forms a "social heiarchery (sp)

According to some reports they are.

Thats some report. Doesn't meet the rubber to the road. Everyone pitches in I could careless about gender. Even sandbag details overseas it doesn't matter the rank or gender. Its a safety issue (sandbag walls to prevent shrapnel going through a tent or soft shell building. Only time I seperate the genders is when some serious heavy lifting is involve for an extended period. Its a trade off then. Men do the lifting the ladies bring the cases of water...why the difference..the water pallet 100 ft away (I also know the stamina of my females from PT before deployment) its "FoB in a Can" hard to describe but a mobile base camp with everything a battalion needs shoved in a container that makes you seriously think how they manage to squeeze the last two feet of equipment in a shoebox

Her CoC screwed up and I'm sure General Letters of Reprimand was slammed into the 201 folders. Still though I'm not going take away what she accomplish. Her chain of command had to put in a 638 for an impact award instead of waiting towards the end of deployment is probaly what got her pulled when the wording of the words gave a huge indication what the Cav unit was doing. Me personnaly I'd shoehorned my officer into waiting towards the end of deployment then drop the megabomb. Yes I will admit I play dirty when it involves the mission and my soldiers but mission first because my CoC (Bn level and above) are Fobbits

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat. Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being 'assigned', women are 'attached in direct support of' the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.
"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."

Goes with me playing dirty. Attach instead of assigned. I throw in "she always in the last vehicle"....last vehicle of what.

Not going over CIB, CMB, EMB, EIB, Rangers again. Till next year 2013

As a leader its a gamble on when and what decision to make on who to do what in shooting situation or to complete the mission. I will not though choose to send a female charging into a shoot out first. Last thing I need and everyone else need is to hear her getting badly wounded and everyone taking the dreaded "oh gak" pause.

Jihadin wrote:Me personnaly I'd shoehorned my officer into waiting towards the end of deployment then drop the megabomb. Yes I will admit I play dirty when it involves the mission and my soldiers but mission first because my CoC (Bn level and above) are Fobbits

Good call. I have no idea how long you can actually wait with this, but her being pulled back for the sake of political correctness hurts the men (one less qualified medic around) as much as it hurts her (basically being told her nation doesn't want her there).

Jihadin wrote:As a leader its a gamble on when and what decision to make on who to do what in shooting situation or to complete the mission. I will not though choose to send a female charging into a shoot out first. Last thing I need and everyone else need is to hear her getting badly wounded and everyone taking the dreaded "oh gak" pause.

Yeah, understandable. The US' current social climate, at least from how the article made it sound, still appears to make a female soldier being wounded or even killed way more problematic than the same happening to a male. As if that wouldn't be equally bad.

That LtCol. Provancha would've apparently gotten in trouble, too, if that other medic - some woman named Guay - would've been wounded or killed. Did you read the 4th page of that article? It also briefly describes the process of bonding with a unit of the 82nd Airborne as an example, and how scepticism slowly turned into acceptance. Just like the experiences reported by German soldiers, so the potential seems to be there. I'd wager that adverse conditions and jointly braving dangers have a binding effect on people in general, regardless of whether it's in the military or not.
In a way, due to these conditions happening faster and more often in the military than in most other professions, this could even be a chance to export this sense of equality into society for a change, rather than waiting until it is slowly trickling in. The conditions faced by these frontline units have already led to policies being circumvented. All that's left to do is revisiting said policies and reassessing their value in the face of the current reality - both on the nonlinear battlefields of the 21st century, as well as a symbol of a society that is supposed to value equality.

Agreed about the NCO thing by the way. From what it sounds like, you seem to be the right guy for the job. Good luck out there, to you and your gang.

BaronIveagh wrote:The side that realized that bombing radar installations is more important then hitting runways. But, I never said that the Nazi High Command did not have serious issues.

Meh, radar was repairable - the real reason to hit it was to follow up in the subsequent days with further strikes on British airfields, to get the planes while they were still on the ground, not alerted by radar. The Nazis tried that for some time and never really made serious in-roads.

Actually we have no real idea at Japanese losses. Ellis compiled some figures on it, but something has always bugged me about his numbers. 'Officially' grand total we lost 45k planes. approx 22k to combat, and 19k to ground losses such as carriers sinking, bombings, etc. (Despite the fact Ellis counts carrier losses with Operational Losses for Axis countries) Despite this, 41k does not equal 45k. So where did we lose the other 4k planes?

So you agree the argument of the US throwing massed numbers of planes at the Japanese was wrong?

Mig 15 vs Corsair and Mustangs? Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. (BTW: do a FOIA request on US air losses in the Korea sometime. You may be surprised how much comes back black pages)

Sure, but the scope for cover up of pilot and aircraft losses in a democratic country with a free press is so far from the scope in a totalitarian state its not comparable. Trusting a Soviet report from that era is just not sensible.

POWs are not casualties, which is what I was talking about.

But the little trick you're playing is reducing the discussion to just that. When talking about the quality of one army or another, the ability to undertake manouvres that force the surrender of large numbers of enemy troops is a very important. When most of the soldiers lost from one are guys who surrendered, you don't just ignore that.

If you ignore the whole divisions that were captured by German encirclement during the blitz, the actual casualties suffered come up fairly even. Well, not even, but far more favourable than successful Russian operations, like Kursk.

Granted, Midway gave us a net gain of 3 carriers, but that wasn't what made it a win. Strategically and Tactically, it was barely a win. What turned it to our long term benefit was that Japanese kept those losses secret, even from their own officers. Since Japanese military planners had no idea that they were four carriers short until nearly the end of the war, yes, that had an impact.

No, not having the carriers had a major impact on Japanese operations, not the lying about them. I mean, seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:@Sebster you actually read what I was getting at about shooting female first.

Yes, I did. The problem was that you provided immense detail for every part of your story except the actual point - your claim that soldiers would act recklessly to save a woman in a way they wouldn't act to save man.

@Sebster. The german military (minus navy) was geared towards combined arms. As for the Aces the same practice appiled to all air combat units. Those who are the most experience were the leads no matter what rank when in the air.

Actually while Germany did develop some combined arms techniques, and effectively advanced the close co-ordination of air and land assets, this was always limited by their inability to develop operational planning objectives, and so was only deployed in specific tactical circumstances.

@Sebster the Battle of Britain was lost when the Lufftwaffe stop going after airfields and other military installations and focus on terror bombing. Also the Lufftwaffe ME109 was screwed since the aircraft was to operate in conjunction with the german ground forces

That's the popular story, yes. Any study of serious military history will tell you otherwise. In no month throughout the war did Britain ever end the war with less planes than when they started.

@Sebster. The Stuka was a dedicated ground attack aircraft not a fighter/bomber like the Typhoon and Thunderbolt. Rudel though was excellent in that aircraft

Yes, and one that was outdated by the start of the war. The Nazis had planes to replace it with a more modern aircraft, but supply limitations prevented that.

@Sebster. Yes horse drawn carts were used in logistics. Towards the end of WWII when petrol was a real issue they used horse drawn carts to tow the aircraft to the flightline to conserve fuel

No, not just at the end of the war, throughout the whole war. Germany simply wasn't the technological army that propaganda portrayed, and their logistics were particularly old school.

@Sebster. Wrong about the japanese carriers. They were the most advance at the time beginning of the war till the Essex class came on board.

I never said they weren't highly advanced. They were. Please read what I said - I stated the Japanese had superiority only if you consider the carriers and nothing else. The US had a vastly larger, and superior overall fleet.

@Sebster. I've witness females getting hit and how many guys that hauled ass to render assistant. Same applies to a guy getting hit but there's a erie difference to it. You have to experience combat to understand what I'm trying to say.

Meh, "you don't know because you haven't been combat" is the same old bs that's been used to argue against every army reform. It was bs when it was segregation, and it was bs when it was gays.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote: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?

My favourite is from the Vietnamese, who claim at the battle of Long Tan they took out three Australian tanks. Despite Australia not deploying a single armoured vehicle, let alone a tank, in the whole of our time in Vietnam.

Anyhow, there's a marked difference between Soviets military claims that come from the political class, and actual Soviet military records of operations. A lot of time has been spent by a lot historians studying the latter, in order to debunk the former. Records of the positioning of Soviet units at Stalingrad sounds a lot like the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote: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.

Not really. Every study into general intelligence has only really managed to establish that there is no such thing. Instead there's a variety of different aptitudes, with no general correlation between them (in some cases there's a loose negative correlation). Combining those into a general intelligence means giving a weighting to spatial intelligence compared to memory - it's an impossible, subjective thing.

And yes, men tend to perform a little better in some of those aptitudes, while women tend to perform a little better in others (though in most cases the difference is minor, and utterly swamped by the variation from person to person).