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.

 DarkLink wrote:
Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.

And you think no agenda is being pushed by the other side? I'm surprised at your naivety.

Why then have we not seen the marines methodology released? I keep hearing things like this:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/02/new-details-question-validity-marine-gender-integration-study.html

supposedly coming from within the Corps.


My agenda consists entirely of the idea that if someone, anyone, has the ability and courage to do the job in the real world, then let them try. They'll either prove themselves or they won't. And that's true of anyone, man, woman, white, black, etc etc.

That's my preconceived notion. Feel free to disprove it.

Baron, I believe this very point was raised and discussed in detail beginning on page 9 of this very thread. Your point mirrors the side for from that argument- all who can meet minimums and have the courage to do so should be able to try.

The other side boils down to statistics- the study showed mixed units didn't perform as well in light infantry tasks. Women are injured far more often than men under field pack and conditions. If you are choosing a car to drive across the country and you have 2 options, one of which is 6 times more likely to break down- you go with the more reliable model. Even if that model of car does have some that can do the job better than the usually more reliable car.

You do that in combat because the only preparation you have is minimizing known problems. Soldiers that break 6 times as often in that task, are more economically used in another task.

For the research and articles offered by both sides, I encourage a read through of the thread.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.

And you think no agenda is being pushed by the other side? I'm surprised at your naivety.

Why then have we not seen the marines methodology released? I keep hearing things like this:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/02/new-details-question-validity-marine-gender-integration-study.html

supposedly coming from within the Corps.


My agenda consists entirely of the idea that if someone, anyone, has the ability and courage to do the job in the real world, then let them try. They'll either prove themselves or they won't. And that's true of anyone, man, woman, white, black, etc etc.

That's my preconceived notion. Feel free to disprove it.

Well right off the bat I can tell you that the article you quoted is absolute garbage. The so called source is stating bits and pieces of information that had already been released. This is what really stuck out to me among several other things

Women volunteering for the effort had to meet only the minimum male score for passing the Marine Physical Fitness Test and the Combat Fitness Test, according to the Marine source.

The women had not trained to meet the top male standard and it showed, according to the Marine source.

The USMC has been pushing for females to do pullups (the only part of the PFT that females currently dont do) for the better part of 4 years. If 4 years of warning orders and memo's isn't enough what more do you need?

Overall this "Marine Source" sounds more like a disgruntled marine who wanted this to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women are just as strong as men, and when that didn't happen they are throwing a hissy fit and going to the media to muddy the water.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
The other side boils down to statistics-

And that's part of my problem with it. With no methodology, the statistical results the marines have shown are meaningless. For all we know, they slanted the outcome. They were supposed to release the full report, including it's methodology last month. It hasn't appeared anywhere that I know of yet, so all we can do is argue in circles. Fact is that once upon a time, all these same arguments which have made in this thread were made in the past about letting blacks into the army, except they were supposedly lacking in mental ability rather than physical ability. they pointed to the military tests and all sorts of civilian ones.

Considering that, I can't help but look on this whole business with a dubious eye.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
The other side boils down to statistics-

And that's part of my problem with it. With no methodology, the statistical results the marines have shown are meaningless. For all we know, they slanted the outcome. They were supposed to release the full report, including it's methodology last month. It hasn't appeared anywhere that I know of yet, so all we can do is argue in circles. Fact is that once upon a time, all these same arguments which have made in this thread were made in the past about letting blacks into the army, except they were supposedly lacking in mental ability rather than physical ability. they pointed to the military tests and all sorts of civilian ones.

Considering that, I can't help but look on this whole business with a dubious eye.

except that arguing about allowing females into the infantry, for which there is KNOWN statistical evidence and hard proof that they are on average weaker and more prone to injury is completely DIFFERENT from the racism of keeping blacks out. And you have beaten that broken horse about a dozen times and pretty much everyone here thinks its a poor argument at best. So PLEASE stop rambling on about racism.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

The USMC has been pushing for females to do pullups (the only part of the PFT that females currently dont do) for the better part of 4 years.

I think his point was that the men selected were held to different criteria than the women were. We can't actually say, based on this, that their injury rate was actually higher, all other things being equal, because of the difference in physical condition.

I'm very curious to see their methodology. I want to see if they compared putting fresh men just out of training in similar physical condition, into a unit with other men. Since, supposedly, the majority of the men involved were veteran marines. I want to see if their decrease in performance and increase in injuries is comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

except that arguing about allowing females into the infantry, for which there is KNOWN statistical evidence and hard proof that they are on average weaker and more prone to injury is completely DIFFERENT from the racism of keeping blacks out. .

Everyone KNEW that blacks were too mentally inferior to serve at the time! There were all sorts of statistics and supposed hard proof that were drummed up to show it! You have yet to tell me how it's different! The fact that thus far the methodology is still concealed makes me suspect that it may in fact be every bit as flawed as the Army IQ tests.

One thing I've noticed about Dakka, you could put a group of posters standing in a square, and have them watch a man climb to the top of a podium, and scream Seig Heil while lynching a Jew and waving a swastika while "Deutschland über alles" plays in the background, and at least one poster would deny it was Nazi.

The Marines don't want women on the front as grunts. So, they cheated on the test to 'prove' that they didn't have what it took.

Beats the Navy murdering 40 odd sailors to get their way with Congress back in the 1990s.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Everyone KNEW that blacks were too mentally inferior to serve at the time!

You do know "scientifically proven" means? This doesn't just mean that someone says that it works that way, this means that it's objectively proven and can be proven by anyone with the same expertise anywhere again. In the contrary, actually, people not believing in men and women being biologically different (and what really worries me is that there are people that DO...what the...) should be tested

Men and women are different in many aspects, including physical facts such as muscle mass, bone structure etc. Women are, physically, weaker than men if we're talking averages. Period. That's about as much news as Obama being not a worthy nobel prize winner. Or a good president.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You do know "scientifically proven" means? This doesn't just mean that someone says that it works that way, this means that it's objectively proven and can be proven by anyone with the same expertise anywhere again.

Their work was peer reviewed. They used over 100k samples, supposedly. As far as psychologists, physicians, and even quacks like phrenologists at the time were concerned, it was 'proven'. And it wasn't really challenged until after WW2 when some of the serious flaws in their methodology were pointed out.

You're also apparently forgetting that things which have been 'Scientifically proven' can later turn out to be wrong.

I think it would be better to study how women have historically performed in actual combat than to conduct this sort of test.


Or, like Philip of Burgundy, do you believe that a woman can only best a man in uniform through witchcraft?



I do find it interesting that one of the areas that mixed units actually did better in was problem solving (and, no, not the math sort). That could be a real bonus for combat engineers. Ma Duce, the heaviest of the man portable crewed weapons they tested.... they excelled at, so I'm not sure that physical strength is telling the whole story. I'm curious if physical size might be a bigger player. it was something that a lot of the women who were interviewed afterward seemed to bring up, that issues were most common among the most slightly built female marines.

Are you seriously trying to argue that women are the physical equal to men? That is a ludicrous assertion. You have offered no evidence to support it. How many women are in male professional sports? How many hold a world record in feats of strength and endurance?

There are thresholds of preformance that large numbers of men can reach that no woman ever has, so please spare me the "it is the same as racism BS".

One thing that to me is silly about the whole idea is that one side is saying we need to expend a bunch of effort trying to figure out if a tiny percentage of women might be able to function as well as men when extreme physical output is necessary. Why? There is an ample supply of bodies that can do the job with no extra effort needed to figure if they can do it. You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.

God or nature, take your pick, made women less capable than men on average and at the extremes. That's how it is. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise, and it is dangerous for both the men and women to do so. There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.

And I thought the US military was all about big investments in unreliable weapons platforms. By your logic though, I might point out that infantry should still be hitting each other with swords, since they misfire far less often than guns.

No, what I'm arguing is that the report does not tell the whole story, and that, historically, women have already proven themselves in front line positions. I've noticed a very mighty jig being danced around that 'minor' issue.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.

It's amusing that you call my comparison to racism bs, and then you seem to imply that women have their 'proper place'.

I've read a few interesting things from men who use very similar language about women to what you just did. But I don't want to Godwin the thread.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
You are asking for a big investment in an unreliable weapons platform in the hopes of finding a small percentage that might be as good. Stick with the reliable tool that has a higher ceiling.

And I thought the US military was all about big investments in unreliable weapons platforms. By your loigic though, I might point out that infantry should still be hitting each other with swords, since they misfire far less often than guns.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
There are all sorts of tasks where women are equal to or superior to men. That is where they should be.

It's amusing that you call my comparison to racism bs, and then you seem to imply that women have their 'proper place'.

So what I gather from your numerous comments baron, is that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and ignorant, nowhere did he say "proper place" in the sexist way in which you meant it.

And btw, the M2 HEAVY machine gun, they were good at firing it best out of all the crew served weapons, would you like to know why? It is the only Crew served weapon that has a HUGE tripod that is usually weighted with sand bags to ensure it doesn't "Climb" or "Jump" and is only fired in short bursts due to inaccuracy at rapid fire, even with the weighted sandbags and tripod. . M249s, M240s, Mark19s all require significant upper body strength to fire from a tripod because they Jump to much during bursts, especially the Mark19, and the 249 and 240 require even more strength to fire on the move.

The females also struggled to carry the M2 on humps because it weighs so damned much.

Well, baron , if you will not accept common sense, anecdotal evidence from serving military folks or scientific tests what proof will you take?


On the plus side, this is definitely new ground. I am perplexed and entertained.

Did you miss the part where I said women are superior to men in some tasks and equal in others. Brute strength, especially in the modern world, isn't really an exciting advantage or reason to feel broadly superior. Unlike the racists I'm not trying to argue about the general superiority of one group over the other.

The problem with the racism analogy is that even if it were a good analogy, and it isn't, it doesn't support the argument that women should participate. Blacks being effective soldiers does not in any way offer evidence that women would be effective. Just because studies showing blacks couldn't do it were wrong, doesn't mean studies showing women won't do well are wrong. About the only way the issue of treatment of blacks is relevant is to support the unchallenged assertion that studies can be wrong, though since it's unchallenged there is no need to support it. You need to challenge arguments about the differences in the physical capabilities of the sexes by showing those differences aren't real or don't matter for a given task.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

The females also struggled to carry the M2 on humps because it weighs so damned much.

I hated that damned gun during 0331 training as I lugged it around Pendleton and sliced up my thumbs while setting headspace and timing. Could not get past my incredulity that we haven't managed in 100 years to come up with a replacement weapon that was simpler, lighter and better. It still astonishes me that thing is a primary weapon. Inventors and engineers need to get their act together.

Not worth it

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Well, baron , if you will not accept common sense, anecdotal evidence from serving military folks or scientific tests what proof will you take?

Well, I'm waiting for any common sense, and 'there i was' stories from random joes currently serving don't beat actual war records (over 90 women became Heroes of the Soviet Union for their service in combat, the US and UK only have ever handed out their highest honors once, respectively, to a woman, and on both cases to civilians). The test at hand is not yet scientific proof of anything, and until they release their methodology, it little better than an anecdote.

I fully admit that women do not have the same level of upper body strength as men, on average. But my question is, 'are they good soldiers?' or, rather, Marines, in this case. Physical strength is not the only component of that. I think that the observations of a lot of the grunts coming out of this are being overlooked in favor of all or nothing rhetoric from both sides. Not every woman is cut out to be a Marine any more than every man is. I think the simplest solution would be to have a minimum height and weight for women wanting to be grunts and a in depth reexamination of the physical fitness requirements for women. Requiring them to only meet the bare minimum obviously is not working.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

So what I gather from your numerous comments baron, is that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and ignorant, nowhere did he say "proper place" in the sexist way in which you meant it.

I did state he implied it rather than saying it. And not everyone. I generally respond respectfully to those who I feel have earned said.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

It is the only Crew served weapon that has a HUGE tripod that is usually weighted with sand bags to ensure it doesn't "Climb" or "Jump"

She was also tested, and was found to be among the weapons that mixed units did not perform as well with. I doubt climb was an issue. So, why did they fail to perform? As I've said many times, until we have a methodology in hand, this report is essentially meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

I hated that damned gun during 0331 training as I lugged it around Pendleton and sliced up my thumbs while setting headspace and timing. Could not get past my incredulity that we haven't managed in 100 years to come up with a replacement weapon that was simpler, lighter and better. It still astonishes me that thing is a primary weapon. Inventors and engineers need to get their act together.

Be glad they didn't. When they tried ot change the handguns, it was a disaster and now they're in a rush to go back to the same or similar guns they had before. People seem to forget that the old theory about wounding the enemy only works if you're fighting someone who cares about casualties.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
...

So just to sum this up: you are denying the fact that there's a biological difference between man and woman.

I don't see any merit in discussing anything with someone who openly rejects common sense and lacks a basic understanding of the topic in question. Waste of time. You let your fanaticism / ideology blind your sight for the actual world and that cannot lead to anything good for anyone. That works on tumblr, but not if you are really, genuinely interested in discussing a matter.

Evaluation of the Performance of Females as Light Infantry Soldiers

This article on hindawi seemed to provide some interesting statistics. Attrition rate was roughly the same over a 3 year period, although there were long term concerns. 21 percent of females had stress fractures- as opposed to 2 percent of males. That is far higher than I thought from earlier in the thread.

Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.

Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.

Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge combat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.

Exactly. Without a methodology a scientific study is useless as it is impossible to reproduce or analyse for methodological errors.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.

Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.

Yep. This is borderline surreal to read.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The females also struggled to carry the M2 on humps because it weighs so damned much.
]

Are we talking about some sort of animal species in the way a documentary does?

I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.

Out of curiosity though, what roles do women perform better than males at in the military? While I certainly won't argue that they fall behind men in active combat roles, surely they exceed them in other areas? After all, the report does say:
“in a decision-making study that we ran in which all male and integrated groups attempted to solve challenging field problems [that involved] varying levels of both physical and cognitive difficulty… the female integrated teams (with one female and three or four males) performed as well or better than the all-male teams.”

I know that women make better Police Officers than men for example so they'd naturally make better Military Police (I assume). I also hear that they tend to be pretty brutal Staff Sargents.

It's not so much necessarily women being better or worse at certain things, per se. They're just like any male, with the sole exception that they have a disadvantage performing tasks that are very physically demanding. I went to Marine OCS (went through, chose not to comission), there were plenty of badass female candidates that I'd trust implicitly, but I also know they would struggle to keep up with the male standards. Every guy there could do 20+ pullups, but in my life I've never met a female who could do more than iirc 12, and they couldn't carry the same weight on rucks without struggling to keep up, and at OCS you probably never carry more than 60lbs plus your rifle. After nearly a decade of doing crossfit, women can't handle the weight men can. I can lift more weight than even most elite level female lifters, and while I'm pretty strong I'm not the next Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson by any means. On average, women tend to do ~60% of the weight guys do, as a rough estimate, and even at that reduced weight, guys tend to get slightly faster times in workouts that focus on lifting heavy stuff.

As an engineer now, I know plenty of intelligent women who are just as good of engineers as any male engineer.

Females are absolutely very capable, but "employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities". Don't send your physically weakest people to do your most physically demanding job. There are absolutely women who can do the job, but your average jane doe probably can't. I'm personally not saying anything on whether or not they should completely ban women or just only select top female performers to go, but I do understand the economic case.

She was also tested, and was found to be among the weapons that mixed units did not perform as well with. I doubt climb was an issue. So, why did they fail to perform? As I've said many times, until we have a methodology in hand, this report is essentially meaningless.

Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly. If you can't toss around 100lbs pretty easily for extended periods you won't be able to load rapidly and performance suffers. And trust me, from nearly a decade of doing crossfit, it takes a pretty badass woman to handle 100lbs for more than a few reps continuously. I know some very tough women who would have trouble keeping up a fast pace handling rounds for it.

You might not know the methodology, but most any Marine can recreate it for you with reasonable accuracy. It's not rocket science. "Your fireteam needs to carry this dummy up this hill, then fire the ma deuce at the target downrange. Time starts in 3, 2, 1, go". Stuff like that.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Guys, just give up. Theres no debating with an ideologue. This whole thread has just become Baron vs everyone. Might as well lock it now.

Baron's saying we don't have the methodology and suggests that perhaps the current standard the US marines uses to judge compat effectiveness might not be all-encompassing. A bunch of right-leaning posters accuses him of having an agenda and being an ideologue. Yep, sounds like we're done here.

Yep. This is borderline surreal to read.

I'm out for a day, and I come back to this pretty hilarious string.

I will say, though, that $400 ashtray clip I posted from the west wing? That show was very liberal. It was also typically very well informed, so it avoided a lot of pitfalls such as not understanding how the military budget works, and it wasn't afraid to occasionally cross political lines and have a conservative call a liberal on something that wasn't accurate. It's a phenominal show all around.

 DarkLink wrote:
Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly.

Yeah, so do tanks, and tanks they excelled at. So what's the scoop? While I grant they lack upper body strength, I ask the question is that the be all and end all of being a good soldier? I know the army has suddenly realized that women are a different shape, and is working on body armor for women. If it's the kit that's the problem, let's look at the kit. Can it be made lighter without sacrificing reliability? (I highly doubt that there is a dog face or grunt in history that will turn up their noses at a lighter kit, as long as it still does the job as effectively.)

 Signet-Powers wrote:
I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.

As far as persons not able to do it go, it's the challenge. It's the idea that it might straighten things out that are wrong in their lives. It's the lack of work at home. So on and so on. There are as many reasons for trying as their are new recruits.



also: I agree that things have become somewhat surreal. Malus and Walrus are defending my position, and we're much better known for locking horns over issues than agreeing on them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Artillery pieces require you to move heavy weights (the ammo) rapidly.

Yeah, so do tanks, and tanks they excelled at. So what's the scoop? While I grant they lack upper body strength, I ask the question is that the be all and end all of being a good soldier? I know the army has suddenly realized that women are a different shape, and is working on body armor for women. If it's the kit that's the problem, let's look at the kit. Can it be made lighter without sacrificing reliability? (I highly doubt that there is a dog face or grunt in history that will turn up their noses at a lighter kit, as long as it still does the job as effectively.)

 Signet-Powers wrote:
I will say its interesting how society has glorified war up to a point that people who are unable to keep up with the requirements want to join.

As far as persons not able to do it go, it's the challenge. It's the idea that it might straighten things out that are wrong in their lives. It's the lack of work at home. So on and so on. There are as many reasons for trying as their are new recruits.



also: I agree that things have become somewhat surreal. Malus and Walrus are defending my position, and we're much better known for locking horns over issues than agreeing on them.

M1
Round is a cartridge damn near. Out the storage bin into the firing chamber, breech closed. fire. Breech open for new round, spent casing ejected, new round loaded. not much movement. Jake has a better idea how this goes being a Tanker

Tow artillery/ SP Artillery (155mm)
Round itself prep, Fuse's arranged, powder bags, primer
Receive Fire Mission from FDC
Gunner & asst. gunner lay tube (verifies deflection and quadrant falls with the firing "T")
Round(s) are fused, powder bags cut Verified by Section Chief
Round is passed to loader who shoves it up the pipe
Asst. loader with ramming rod slams the round up
Cut powder is loaded behind the rammed round
Breech closed by Loader, Breech primed with firing catridge
Lanyard hooked, pulled, fire
Breech open manually
Chamber swabbed with rag rod to estinguish(sp) embers

process repeated till mission complete
FDC call the number of rounds to fire

Off the top of my head

Edit

Distance the round travels to breech

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Evaluation of the Performance of Females as Light Infantry Soldiers

This article on hindawi seemed to provide some interesting statistics. Attrition rate was roughly the same over a 3 year period, although there were long term concerns. 21 percent of females had stress fractures- as opposed to 2 percent of males. That is far higher than I thought from earlier in the thread.

28% for women, 37% for men. That's actually a pretty large difference in attrition there, though can be explained as the men were assigned there, and the women were volunteers. Interestingly, only 1% of men went on to be officers, 5% of women did.

This was interesting, and bares out my suggestion about a minimum size for females trying to enter the infantry:

" On univariate analysis, the only variables that were found to have a statistically significant relationship to the incidence of stress fractures among females were the lower BMI (22.0 kg·m−2 versus 23.3 kg·m−2, ) and less body fat (16.9 kg versus 18.7 kg, ) among those with stress fractures as compared with those without stress fractures. "

So, bigger girls break less. Which is also what the grunts coming out of the study were saying.

The fact remains that if you can find the women that could hack it in a front line unit, the costs involved finding those few would be prohibitive. This fact has already been pretty well laid out earlier.

 Jihadin wrote:

M1
Round is a cartridge damn near. Out the storage bin into the firing chamber, breech closed. fire. Breech open for new round, spent casing ejected, new round loaded. not much movement. Jake has a better idea how this goes being a Tanker

Tow artillery/ SP Artillery (155mm)
Round itself prep, Fuse's arranged, powder bags, primer

[Edit read his post for full list]

M1's weighs about 50 pounds for that cartridge. While the 155 weighs about 100 pounds, it's picked up by two guys (IIRC) . So, my question then is: at what point is the problem taking place. Is it across the board, or at specific stages? How were they gauging effectiveness? (Shots on targets seemed to be the rule, but without their methodology we don't know.)

The 'Why' is missing. Is it something that requires a change in physical requirements, or is it something that can be worked around by altering training? Or is it just the difference experianced troops and people just out of training? Why does the Army consider their performance acceptable (and has for some time, I've met female loaders who were in Iraq.) and the marines not? What was different? That's why I say we don't have the whole picture, and that arguing our positions based on a summery isn't getting us anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The fact remains that if you can find the women that could hack it in a front line unit, the costs involved finding those few would be prohibitive. This fact has already been pretty well laid out earlier.

How much do you think would really have to change? And point me to real numbers, not guesses or assertions.


Edit: this one's a bit old, but was a criticism of the experiment last year in the Marine Corps times. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140706/NEWS01/307060015/Opinion-Deck-stacked-against-women-experimental-task-force

Two guys do not carry the round. Its a one service member carry/pass off.
#1 Cannoneer preps the round
Section Chief verifies fuse/fuse setting
#2 Cannoneer grabs the round and hauls to loader
Loader throws it in the breech
#2 Punches the ram into firing chamber
#3 Cannoneer tosses the cut charge bag after Section Chief verifies the correct cut has been made
Loader receives charge from #3 Cannoneer
Loader throws in the charge, closes the breech, primes the breech, and hook lanyard
Loader fires the round

A two man carry was for the M110 or the 8inch cannon SP cannon being the damn shell was 200+ lbs


We no longer use the M110