Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

You definitely did not meet any Females who served as loaders on tanks or artillery who were in Iraq.

 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 find it more surreal that civilians are lecturing serving soldiers on gender equality and what women in the army are physically capable of.

(FYI, I'm not military).

Very much agreed on the surreal bit.

Looking at some of Barons recent comments in the ISIL thread (p72), I get the feeling he's more interested in the US looking bad than anything to do with this topic.

Self edited. This thing had no business being written

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Looking at some of Barons recent comments in the ISIL thread (p72), I get the feeling he's more interested in the US looking bad than anything to do with this topic.

He's got some pretty derptastic views on Israel as well. Some people earn their place on ignore far more gracefully than others.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

Here's an article from the Navy times about the two women who made it past Ranger school out of the nineteen who started. According to the article, the school normally has a 45% pass rate. Two out of nineteen is far below that percentage, meaning that money which could have been used graduating men was pissed away.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/08/18/women-seals-greenert-losey-buds/31943243/

From the link:

"The move to integrate the military's most storied commando units comes the day after news broke that two women had passed the Army's arduous Ranger course. Nineteen women began the course, which has about a 45 percent passing rate."

Instead of 9 men, we get 2 women.

Relapse wrote:
Instead of 9 men, we get 2 women.

But is this really true? Were there an additional 19 qualified men who were turned down to make room for the women? Were there open positions for the additional seven (hypothetical) male graduates, or would they have been redundant? And, assuming we could in fact have had those additional seven graduates, is the value of having seven more men, all of them worse than the 94 who did graduate, really that significant? Is it so vital to have the absolute best possible efficiency in training budgets that it takes priority over all other factors?

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Instead of 9 men, we get 2 women.

But is this really true? Were there an additional 19 qualified men who were turned down to make room for the women? Were there open positions for the additional seven (hypothetical) male graduates, or would they have been redundant? And, assuming we could in fact have had those additional seven graduates, is the value of having seven more men, all of them worse than the 94 who did graduate, really that significant? Is it so vital to have the absolute best possible efficiency in training budgets that it takes priority over all other factors?

Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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 find it more surreal that civilians are lecturing serving soldiers on gender equality and what women in the army are physically capable of.

(FYI, I'm not military).

We're "lecturing" on methodology in scientific studies more than anything really.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.

And all these people on the waiting lists are as qualified as the people who do get picked? They aren't just filling slots for the sake of filling slots? Having lots of demand for something doesn't mean that the 500th person on the waiting list is really a significant loss to the military.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yes, I don't know how you can ask those questions with any sort of sincerity. I have never been to any sort of training in the military where the slots weren't filled in months in advance. hell I got to sit in on a lot of advanced analysis training and other courses because another marine had to drop out due to other requirements or injuries. Training slots are always filled, no matter what.

And all these people on the waiting lists are as qualified as the people who do get picked? They aren't just filling slots for the sake of filling slots? Having lots of demand for something doesn't mean that the 500th person on the waiting list is really a significant loss to the military.

if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.

In this specific case they are taking the place of Male Marines going to Infantry training, so its not as big of a deal because we can push a lot of people into those general types of classes. But the more specialized schools and training when you hit the feet, thats a big downside and they would eat up precious training spots. So again by your logic, woman aren't justified taking those training slots.

I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else. Even though civilisation has always been run by men. And nearly everything of any value was invented by men. And women need to take their clothes off to get anywhere in life.

I'm not knocking individual women here, it's just that I've had a lot of girlfriends and 95% of my friends and colleagues are female, so I most certainly do not put women on a pedestal. Only men who don't know any women do that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.

No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what the actual consequence of taking female candidates is. Who are the men getting turned down? Are they awesome candidates that the military really needs, or are they low-tier candidates that the military puts on the waiting list just in case some of the better candidates drop out and they need a few more warm bodies to fill the slots? How much of a drop in quality is there from the top of the class to the best male candidates who don't get in? If we assume that we absolutely must take some female candidates can you quantify the potential drop in quality of our military as a result of not taking the top male candidates on the waiting list?

And I'm asking these questions sincerely. I'm obviously not in the military and I don't know how generous or restricted the selection process is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NoPoet wrote:
I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else. Even though civilisation has always been run by men. And nearly everything of any value was invented by men. And women need to take their clothes off to get anywhere in life.

I'm not knocking individual women here, it's just that I've had a lot of girlfriends and 95% of my friends and colleagues are female, so I most certainly do not put women on a pedestal. Only men who don't know any women do that.

Well, that's certainly a nice straw man post. Could you provide some examples of who these people are that seriously argue that women are better at everything?

PS: if you think that men having more power or inventing "nearly everything of value" is the result of inherent superiority and not coincidences of culture then you aren't dealing with reality.

PPS: you might want to thank a woman for the fact that you're reading this on a computer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if your going to do it by qualifications as you just suggested, then the females would be on the absolute bottom of the list due to the fact that they have a significantly higher failure rate and they tend to be injured significantly more then male soldiers.

No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what the actual consequence of taking female candidates is. Who are the men getting turned down? Are they awesome candidates that the military really needs, or are they low-tier candidates that the military puts on the waiting list just in case some of the better candidates drop out and they need a few more warm bodies to fill the slots? How much of a drop in quality is there from the top of the class to the best male candidates who don't get in? If we assume that we absolutely must take some female candidates can you quantify the potential drop in quality of our military as a result of not taking the top male candidates on the waiting list?

And I'm asking these questions sincerely. I'm obviously not in the military and I don't know how generous or restricted the selection process is.

No, I can't quantify the drop in quality because I don't have access to the hundreds of thousands of records that that information would require. Nor do I have the time to wade through hundreds of thousands of documents to provide you with a nice neat number. What I can tell you is that Yes there would be a drop in quality because the military has limited resources for training and any gap in training can lead to a significant downgrade in performance.

My unit was forced to deploy to afghanistan without a Collection Manager. Usually the collection manager is a SSgt or a Sgt, since we didn't have anyone trained for it and we didn't have the Staff NCOs/Sgts to spare for the billet we had to give it to a LCpl who later picked up Cpl while deployed. So for the first 2 months we were forced to operate at a limited capacity because the training billets for a Collection manager were filled to capacity.

So limited training slots = Loss in productivity.

 Peregrine wrote:
[quote=]Well, that's certainly a nice straw man post. Could you provide some examples of who these people are that seriously argue that women are better at everything?

PS: if you think that men having more power or inventing "nearly everything of value" is the result of inherent superiority and not coincidences of culture then you aren't dealing with reality.

PPS: you might want to thank a woman for the fact that you're reading this on a computer.

Can't you read? We are constantly surrounded by examples of things women are supposedly better at - I literally cannot pick one thing out of the massive bombardment of this stuff we get every day.

EDIT: Yes I can. Nothing is being done to address the educational gap between boys and girls (for example), or to explore why girls do indeed tend to outperform boys. But every time men do something women aren't allowed to do - for example form societies, or create job roles such as fireman and soldier - women's rights groups break into these on grounds of misogyny. Men are not allowed to break into women's groups, and job roles that are female only ARE allowed to be created - there are laws about this.

1. I never said men are better at everything. I said women are NOT better at everything.
2. Quite a few coincidences, covering thousands of cultures over millennia. I guess we can call the Amazons the exception to the rule. They're mythical, but hey, females in charge and all that.
3. I do thank a woman - my mum - and I also thank my dad. Yeah, dads do exist.

 NoPoet wrote:
Can't you read? We are constantly surrounded by examples of things women are supposedly better at - I literally cannot pick one thing out of the massive bombardment of this stuff we get every day.

IOW, you don't have any examples and you're building a straw man.

EDIT: Yes I can. Nothing is being done to address the educational gap between boys and girls (for example), or to explore why girls do indeed tend to outperform boys.

First, neglecting one issue that hurts men isn't evidence for your claim of people saying "women are better at everything".

Second, do you actually have any evidence that nobody cares that girls outperform boys on certain tests? I'll offer the obvious counter-example that all of my engineering classes had a rather overwhelming male majority. So if nobody cares about the poor men then why wasn't I one of the few men in a class full of women?

But every time men do something women aren't allowed to do - for example form societies, or create job roles such as fireman and soldier - women's rights groups break into these on grounds of misogyny.

Well yes, you shouldn't be able to create male-only jobs just for the sake of having male-only jobs. If women are capable of doing those jobs then they should be able to do them.

Men are not allowed to break into women's groups, and job roles that are female only ARE allowed to be created - there are laws about this.

So, what exactly are these jobs that are limited by law to only women?

1. I never said men are better at everything. I said women are NOT better at everything.

You claimed that "studies" are proving that women are better at everything. Let's look at your own words:

I'm just waiting for the studies which "prove" women are better at combat than men, since studies are "proving" they're better at everything else.

Given how badly you're failing to provide evidence for your claim I think we can conclude that saying this wasn't a very good idea.

2. Quite a few coincidences, covering thousands of cultures over millennia. I guess we can call the Amazons the exception to the rule. They're mythical, but hey, females in charge and all that.

Sigh. You do realize that those cultures came from the same roots, right? And that once a group gains power it usually tries to keep that power? Men have so far succeeded at that in most cultures, but that doesn't make them inherently superior. It just means they had a head start.

And really, I don't see why you think this is a convincing argument in the first place. I mean, would you argue that your boss shouldn't be fired because they've been your boss for so long, and refuse to talk about whether or not they're actually better at their job than their potential replacement? Of course not. So why should "men have been in charge in the past" be a convincing argument?

3. I do thank a woman - my mum - and I also thank my dad.

Did you even read the link?

Yeah, dads do exist.

Yeah, those poor dads, never being recognized for existing...

We're done