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.

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

Personally, we have nearly all the data we need... For the past few years the Marines has been sending female after female to its Infantry Officer school, and ALL of them have washed out. The same thing for the Army. The army, due to our presence in the 'Stan/Special Ops have created a "Special Branch" of SF that women can apply/try out for that is quite physically demanding by their standards in order to have a female presence in those extremely remote villages, etc.... that whole "winning hearts and minds" BS.

As the Standards of today are set, women quite simply cannot cut it in the infantry (I won't say combat arms, because there are tankers and artillery people around who make many military people look bad). I am personally of the belief that if we muddle the standards, by making them completely equal (which means often times the male standard will be lowered an extent), then it will cause serious harm to our overall combat effectiveness. That isn't to say that I don't think women can't handle combat situations (Iraq and supply convoys have shown us that they indeed can), just that the Infantry isn't the likely best place for them in a combat role.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:
Not entirely sure, but he's hinting at another question: if the representation rate of females in infantry/ combat arms minuscule, is it worth the cost to integrate them? Clearly, we don't have nearly sufficient data quantitatively or qualitatively to make that call yet, but something to mull over.

Personally, we have nearly all the data we need... For the past few years the Marines has been sending female after female to its Infantry Officer school, and ALL of them have washed out. The same thing for the Army. The army, due to our presence in the 'Stan/Special Ops have created a "Special Branch" of SF that women can apply/try out for that is quite physically demanding by their standards in order to have a female presence in those extremely remote villages, etc.... that whole "winning hearts and minds" BS.

As the Standards of today are set, women quite simply cannot cut it in the infantry (I won't say combat arms, because there are tankers and artillery people around who make many military people look bad). I am personally of the belief that if we muddle the standards, by making them completely equal (which means often times the male standard will be lowered an extent), then it will cause serious harm to our overall combat effectiveness. That isn't to say that I don't think women can't handle combat situations (Iraq and supply convoys have shown us that they indeed can), just that the Infantry isn't the likely best place for them in a combat role.

Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

 DEUS VULT wrote:


Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DEUS VULT wrote:


Yeah, IOS has been a debacle, and that's the EASY part. Marines have the Female Engagement Teams, which sounds like a similar role. Recently, a small handful of women have graduated from the enlisted infantryman course. They won't be sent to infantry units, and were simply part of a data gathering exercise to see what the pass rate was among females. However, the standards in the fleet are much higher than those in the schoolhouse. As for artillery (I was a Forward Observer, 0861, a 13F in the Army) I'd be ok with women in some sections, like FDC, radar, and weather. Arty is the first to be turned into provisional infantry in a pinch, though.

Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

Totally. The gun line is no place to be weak. Cannoneers work. I was ok with them doing charts and darts, handling AFATIDS

 motyak wrote:
They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

Asking for an interested party who wishes to remain anonymous and totally is not me. Totally.

 nels1031 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

Asking for an interested party who wishes to remain anonymous and totally is not me. Totally.

Well don't arrive by boat, we as a nation seem to be terrified of people who arrive by boat. Just show up to recruiting and say "I want to pretend to be infantry, but I don't want to use my feet at all". Then they'll go "Are you sure that you don't want to be a man and go to the Light Infantry Battalions in Townsville?" And you'll say "Good god no that sounds like work, I want to sit in Darwin and occasionally go on ex to Pucka" And then you'll shake hands, say the words, and be off to Kapooka to start your new life as a Cav Scout.

I'm kidding I respect everyone who joins our army for honourable reasons, and cav scouts aren't particularly bad compared to the Q-store rats, but then no one is...

 motyak wrote:
And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

In theory our scouts are supposed to to much the same.. or in a traditional war, they use those vehicles to go behind enemy lines and... ya know... scout gak out for people and gak.... But, more often than not, they end up kicking in doors like the infantry (at least in Iraq and Stan)

 Ouze wrote:
Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

Every Marine a rifleman.

I have a solution. Bring back the Agoge, but for da wimminz.

THIS...IS...SP er AMERICA

Americans, what is your profession?

hoorah hoorah hoorah

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

That would be nice. And as far as my anecdotal experience with PT ... Basic and AIT got me good at running, everything else I just did 'decent' at until I started working out on my own time. And I never got really good at sit ups. I could do 'em all day, but I never got quick. I could knock out 71 pushups in about 75 seconds, and run two miles in 11:30-12:00, but not those godsdamned situps.


And yeah, our second trip to Iraq, my E-4 ass was literally the most experienced person in my section. My boss had spent 3 years working on the Soldier Show and the ten years before that on completely different equipment, and all our other NCOs were garbage. Still the second best Node Center in OIF III - our other platoon beat us by like 47 minutes of up-time.

 Frazzled wrote:
I have a solution. Bring back the Agoge, but for da wimminz.

THIS...IS...SP er AMERICA

Americans, what is your profession?

hoorah hoorah hoorah

So like the Lingerie Bowl?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not necessarily true in the Air Force at least. Our PT scores only factor in promotion based on whether we pass or fail. It doesn't matter if I score a 75 or 100, the impact to my EPR is the same. I believe the Navy works similarly.

Yup. Nobody ever gave a gak about my PRT.

Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things... from what I understand of the Navy system is that each year you have to take a test. approximately 75% of questions regard your job at your current rank, and the rest are your job at the next rank. How you score on that test determines the greater portion of your promotion points (this was passed on to me from a guy who got out of the navy about a decade or so ago, so it could be off by now)... This makes so much sense to me, as I absolutely hate it when I MUST respect someone's rank, yet they know feth all about their actual job. And usually if they are horrible at their MOS, then they are also horrible at leading troops as well.

Since we shared the same MOS, I know exactly how you feel. Having a bunch of NCOs re-classing in from Infantry and FA, that not only lowered our chances of getting promoted, but were also slowed absolutely sucked. One of the reasons I got out.

Granted, that was not always the case. One of the best NCOs I ever knew re-classed from FA. However, he was the exception, not the rule.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things...

Bear in mind I have no idea if that's how it works for enlisted sailors. I just know that, for JOs, it's basically automatic as long as your fitreps aren't disasters.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, this is a much better way of doing things...

Bear in mind I have no idea if that's how it works for enlisted sailors. I just know that, for JOs, it's basically automatic as long as your fitreps aren't disasters.

I'm not an officer, but I think that's how it works for all officers. I had an old CO who was thoroughly surprised when he got pinned Major while still in his masters program (he had a letter of reprimand on file from his time as a 1LT serving as a company XO... what he called "the tazer incident" lol)

I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

3 gets males 15 points for that event. 12 pull ups gets males 60 (out of 100 possible points). 20 pull ups gets you the max 100 points.

Do the Marines do burpees?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do the Marines do burpees?

no one does a burpee "test"... occasionally we'll do them as part of a pt "workout"

 Sasori wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I have never understood the difference between holding men to a higher physical standard in the military.

In my age group I am required to be able to do a minimum of 33 push ups in one minute. Females are required to do 18. I have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 13:36 minumum, while they have nearly 3 minutes longer to run the same distance.

A womans job is in no way shape or form any different from mine, so why do I have significantly different physical standards?

I understand that yes there is a significant physical difference between the two sexes, but if the AF determines that I am unable to complete my mission without being able to do 33 push ups, then how does the female sitting next to me with the same rank, doing the same job, with the same amount of time in service, get it done?

Airforce PT standards are a joke anyway...

On topic, I agree with this.

If the Air Force PT standards are a joke, what does that make the Navy's? Its the same test, except Air Force gets half the amount of time to do the same amount of pushups and situps. Similar could be said of the Army as well, however they have a 2 mile run instead of the AF/Navy's 1.5 mile, and their scoring is done entirely differently.

I will however say, the female 'standards' were ridiculous when I was still in ROTC. We had female cadets who more or less power walked the 1.5 mile run , and their score was more or less the same as mine despite the fact that I ran the same distance in 10 mins vs their 13 or so.

 Seaward wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
If there is a reason for the standard, then it should be met regardless of the sex of the person that is required to make it.
If you can meet the standard, then you should be allowed to do the job.
If you can't meet it, then you shouldn't

That should be the end of the discussion.

It certainly should be, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not it will be. There's little doubt the military can get the overwhelming majority of females to the point where they can pass the basic combat arms physical requirements. The concern I'd have is for considerably tougher standards; what happens when a woman wants to go to BUD/S or SFAS? It's going to be a very, very low percentage that make it through - it's already a pretty low percentage among males. If we weren't dealing with a political agenda, that'd be the end of it, but inevitably someone's going to want to see female SEALs or 18As or whatever.

Naval aviation learned some very hard lessons about integrating females. Stick to the same standards and the same treatment as the males, and things can actually work out. Start deviating, and you run into problems.

Well, she might not have had the chops to fly, but it sounds like she could meet PT standards at least!

 Ouze wrote:
It seemed a fair rap. You're a woman and crash a plane, it's implied because you're an incompetent who only cut it because standards were lowered (although those facts weren't presented).

You graduate bottom in your class, have your dad pull some strings, and subsequently crash 4 planes (at least one of which also clearly pilot error); you're a conservative hero. /shrug

It's a tragedy she died, but if there's a cautionary tale here, maybe it's that sometimes pilot error happens and is useful to flog a political end on wargaming message boards if you're cheap enough to do so?

From everything I've read McCain was actually regarded as a good/skilled pilot by his peers, but was also seen as reckless (hence the incidents in question). Also of note, from what I've read/heard/been told, that sort of thing was far more common in those days, while a single incident could potentially end your flying career today, in those times it wasn't altogether uncommon for stuff like that to occur.

Are there different physical requirements based on MOS?

Can't speak for the Marines, but there are for some in the AF (TACP, Pararescue, and CCT come to mind). I do know, regardless of branch, there are "unofficial" standards to contend with, your average Marine/Soldier/Airman/Sailor entering certain positions might be more physically fit than average, and if its a selective MOS, while the official required standards might be the same as whatever the service wide standard is, if you want a realistic chance of being picked up you're going to have to score a good bit better than that.

That being said, I'm not sure alternating standards based on such would be a good idea. Certainly there are cases where units have you wound up in combat even if they shouldn't have - and, after all, "every Marine is a rifleman".

Rifleman doesn't equal infantryman, just keep that in mind.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Possibly in the Marines, but here in the army, the first line "we need infantry who arent 11B/C/D/etc" are the Tankers and Cav Scouts (well, really the Scouts are already infantry... but better)... At the same time, I can't see too many females that I've seen/known in my decade in the army who could handle a full time, round the clock fire mission. I know those dont happen very often any more, but, depending on situation, the ability to constantly load and fire those 155 shells from our field guns is critical, and there arent too many females who could handle it.... Then again, there are quite a few males who would struggle or couldnt handle it either.

Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

 motyak wrote:
And infantryman who says Cav Scouts are like infantry but better? They must be completely different to our Cav Scouts, who just sit in the back of their vehicles and spank it.

Nope, as I understand it, thats pretty much true of our cav scouts too ;P

How can an American citizen volunteer to join the Australian military, with a preference for a job in the cav scouts?

http://www.stripes.com/news/serving-down-under-australia-offers-military-jobs-to-us-troops-facing-separation-1.176622

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do the Marines do burpees?

no one does a burpee "test"... occasionally we'll do them as part of a pt "workout"

In AFROTC we never did burpees, we did body-builders, which are like burpees, except longer, more complicated, and more painful. (8 count exercise: 1. go down 2. kick your legs back 3. kick your legs out (split them to the sides) 4. kick your legs back in (together) 5 pushup down 6. pushup up 7. kick your legs forward 8. stand up to position of attention, rinse/repeat as needed). But again, that wasn't a test, it was just physical training, usually a sort of 'reward'...

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

Marine crunches aren't really what most people think of when they think of crunches. It's more like a half situp, really. It's supposed to demonstrate core/abdominal strength, but in my experience it tends to work the hip flexors as much as the abs, if not more.

 Hordini wrote:

Marine crunches aren't really what most people think of when they think of crunches. It's more like a half situp, really. It's supposed to demonstrate core/abdominal strength, but in my experience it tends to work the hip flexors as much as the abs, if not more.

I've thought about it a little more and they make sense now. The exercise specifically targets the abdominal wall, which aids in breathing and protects internal organs.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I may have missed it but the following link has the events and scores:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

The form and standard for crunches is weird. I mean, what is it meant to demonstrate?

You're basically in the up position the entire time, unless you stop, or don't know how to do them correctly. In addition to being able to do a crunch, it also shows that you can keep your abdominal area firm for the time it takes you to do 100 crunches. The down position is the bottom of your shoulder blade making contact with the deck. 100 is a joke though. I can do 130 or more if it's just a max set, and I could probably do more if I really had to.

It's all about breathing, and getting into the rhythm of it. Oddly, throwing your chin up every time seems to make them easier, much like pull-ups.

I don't believe we should lower the standards in order to increase the number of people from an under-represented demographic in anything where the skills needed determine whether someone lives or dies.

You wouldn't lower the physical requires so that morbidly obese people can join the military. If they can't meet the standards that are needed then they aren't qualified for that job.

This of course assumes that the standards are really the minimal skill/ability to perform a task.

 Somedude593 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Is this pull-ups in nothing but fatigues? Or pull-ups with full kit/equivalent weight?

That is a good question even i could do a good number of the first.. but the second... fuggedaboutit

The PFT is done in t-shirt, shorts, and running shoes. It consists of pull-ups (between 3 and 20), situps (50 - 80 in a 2 minute time), and a three mile run (18 min to 28 min time).

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know how I know you're a cav scout? Because you think you're infantry (and/or better).

I'm not a Cav Scout. During my second tour in Iraq, I was attached, at different times to a scout platoon, an armor platoon, and an infantry platoon. I felt, by far and away, safer and in better control of all situations we faced when I was with the scouts than I was the infantry, and it was the scouts who best had their gak together, needed "guidance" from higher far less often, and things just ran more smoothly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not quite sure how I ended up in this quote box.

Yeah, I was about the farthest from Cav scout you can get, best not to assume silly things Chaos0xomega.

Fixed that Sasori... Yeah, I had to cut quite a bit of his post down for that one, musta overlooked it