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.

"A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time.

Overall, according to a summary of the study, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated... All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

A more comprehensive summary of the study is linked in the article.

OK.

This study was performed by Marine CPT. Obvious, operating out of Joint Base What-did-you-expect/What-else-is-new.

I'm sure very few people who have been paying attention to this even peripherally are surprised, but at least now we have hard data to back up what many people have been saying ever since the idea of integrating the combat arms was floated.

Nothing even remotely surprising about this. Many of us who served in Mixed units in the past were pointing out similar experiences. My only concern is that this won't be enough to stop integration of combat units. And before someone comes out and starts yelling MISOGYNIST, I have no problem with woman serving in any capacity, until it compromises a units combat efficiency. Equal opportunity should always be a goal unless it costs lives.

Does anyone here seriously believe this study is going to change the integration of combat units?
There are too many feel goods attached to this idea of intergrating women in the name of equality, making it something that will never go away.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that generally speaking a man will on average be better at the physical aspects of "war" then a woman.

The question is to what extent. I'm a proponent of giving women larger combat roles in the military, but at what point is the disparity in performance between male and female considered too wide to justify even bothering letting women in? The most popular argument for proponents of integrating women into front-line units is that if even just one out of 100 women has the genetics/potential to match a man in physical performance, that one woman should be allowed to have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men. But if you consider that every trainee who washes out or underperforms is essentially a net-loss in training time and money for the military, does there come a point where the opportunity/resource cost is simply too high to allow women into these roles?

 Alpharius wrote:
OK.

If I made a post like this, I'd probably get a warning.

What was your point in posting this to begin with?

And by that I mean - what do you think about it?

And why couldn't you post it to begin with?

Because otherwise the OT Forum might as well be the AP News Service string.

Anybody surprised?

I think this is the result of having one group get easy access while one group has restricted access. It means the easy group is likely going to have the most variation in ability. Well at least that's how I see it anyway...

Funny this came after the anti women neck-beard thread though.

Don't go off topic by getting into arguments about a moderator wanting you to include more in your OP than you did. Take it to PMs, I deleted the last post and I'll delete future ones as well.

I don't know... hit to efficiency found... now maybe find some way to remedy it or something?

It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.

 DarkLink wrote:
It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.

I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?

 djphranq wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.

I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?

It's easier to say if you or your loved ones are not among those who are going into harm's way.

 DarkLink wrote:
It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.

And don't forget about the fact that the injury rate was 6 times that of men. So for every injury a male Marine suffered 6 Females were injured. At what point do you just rule this out based on the injury numbers alone? how long can a Woman be combat effective with stress fractures?

Also I would like to point out that the full article points out that for certain events it was the males in the mixed units that performed for the "team" as opposed to the females. Specifically events such as individual casualty retrieval, which is where a Marine fire man carries a "wounded" buddy out of combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djphranq wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.

I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?

Go serve a couple years on the front lines, I doubt you will keep that mindset.

By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.

I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).

Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.

My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.

Also, my point was, if you have a course like Marine Infantry Officer Course where every single female who's tried it has failed, or even Ranger School where, while very few women might be able to make it through but the pass rate is extremely low, it's simply not financially feasible to send people you know are almost guaranteed to fail. And if you have a course where even if you do get a decent pass rate, the ones that do pass tend to do so by a very narrow margin, you're hurting the combat effectiveness of the unit by taking slots away from top performers and giving them to weaker candidates. Not to say that no female will ever pass IOC or anything, but it simply might not be practical to open the school to women.

Keep in mind, I think that if a female can perform, she should get a shot, it's just a question of how many women actually can perform at that level. Even if they are physically fit enough, female injury rates in these training schools have been very high, and that's far more of an issue than whether or not they can do a minimum number of pullups or not.

 djphranq wrote:
By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.

I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).

Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.

My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.

Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.

Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

But surely the women wouldn't be there if there were enough manly men to take the higher scores? Or is there an actual quota of females allowed in without regard to their scores?

Hmm... and this is also a test from having 100 women and 300 men volunteer for exercises. Why aren't they using actual data from mixed and all-male units that saw combat?

Spetulhu wrote:
But surely the women wouldn't be there if there were enough manly men to take the higher scores? Or is there an actual quota of females allowed in without regard to their scores?

Hmm... and this is also a test from having 100 women and 300 men volunteer for exercises. Why aren't they using actual data from mixed and all-male units that saw combat?

You don't make any sense at all.

This was a USMC test to study the effectiveness of Females in mixed gender infantry unit.

the 300 males were divided into a 200 All male unit and a 100 male 100 female mixed gender unit. The two units were then tested to see which did better in each set of tests.

As for why theirs no data for mixed units that saw combat...because none exist. Up until now the only time females saw combat was in random ambushes and small fire fights, nothing as extreme as most infantry have to go through.

I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.

I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).

Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.

My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.

Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.

Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

I wasn't thinking of lowering standards but I see what you're saying.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

I think what he was saying was more along the lines of: people have a certain effective combat shooting ability (marksmanship) under these specific testing metrics... If we spent "umpteen millions" of dollars on improving that aspect of combat effectiveness, you'd see an increase across the board

As an example, if a fire team of all males scores an "87" in a MOUT course, out of 100, and a mixed gender team does the same thing and scores a 75.... shouldn't we look at ways to improve both that 87 and 75?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

If I'm understanding his/her message clearly.... basically he's asking about whether there's a "quota" of females in these infantry slots, or whether these women are the top of the top, the ones who legitimately meet other standards?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

I think what he was saying was more along the lines of: people have a certain effective combat shooting ability (marksmanship) under these specific testing metrics... If we spent "umpteen millions" of dollars on improving that aspect of combat effectiveness, you'd see an increase across the board

As an example, if a fire team of all males scores an "87" in a MOUT course, out of 100, and a mixed gender team does the same thing and scores a 75.... shouldn't we look at ways to improve both that 87 and 75?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

If I'm understanding his/her message clearly.... basically he's asking about whether there's a "quota" of females in these infantry slots, or whether these women are the top of the top, the ones who legitimately meet other standards?

Well the metric of combat marksmanship can be improved by spending more time on the range, but the other metrics CANT be changed through more training. And in the military there is a lot more then just shooting accurately.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Well the metric of combat marksmanship can be improved by spending more time on the range, but the other metrics CANT be changed through more training. And in the military there is a lot more then just shooting accurately.

I know that, before I left the army, and throughout my time in it, the training constantly evolved. The army generally speaking, was constantly seeking ways to improve training, if they couldn't increase frequency. Being in the specialized units that I was in, MOS training took precedence over things like room clearing, basic land nav, and sadly, even marksmanship... So those units had to make the best of what training they could get in. What we couldn't do through repetitive training (like Infantry may get), we had to get with "efficient" training.


And, IMO, everyone should be doing that with each of their tasks... trying to come up with ways to improve the training

 Ghazkuul wrote:

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

Hrm, there was a whole host of drama behind that piece of equipment and questions regarding its capability and failure rates in various environments and all sorts of different testing results and lots of bad blood between and amongst the manufacturer and various military procurement and testing groups.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

Hrm, there was a whole host of drama behind that piece of equipment and questions regarding its capability and failure rates in various environments and all sorts of different testing results and lots of bad blood between and amongst the manufacturer and various military procurement and testing groups.

I remember my second deployment, there was talk we were supposed to get dragon armor... eventually we got our IOTVs. Among the reasons were that apparently the dragon armor failed the "water test" as in, it was too difficult to remove in a deep water survival situation, and it's weight being more than the IOTV and other options, the issue of removing it in those situations becomes even more problematic.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.

I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).

Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.

My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.

Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.

Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.

So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.

All other things aside this just isn't how government spending works. Research & Training for finding more optimal ways to use women probably wouldn't come out of the body armor budget any more than the military budget determines in general determines how much we spend on infrastructure maintenance. Like or not the military has basically done a cost/benefit analysis and weighed the per-unit costs on armor vs the value of a soldiers life and determined the armor isn't worth it. It's not a value proposition they can take. You could double or triple the millitary budget and this analysis likely wouldn't change. A surplus of resources doesn't mean they'll invest that surplus in things already to determined to be of insufficient value. It'd go in normal proportion to whatever they do see as worthwhile ventures which doesn't include that body armor (though something like R&D for better cost effective armor might not be out of the question).


EDIT: This if course assumes that your assumption of it being a cost issue is correct. This obviously doesn't apply if cost wasn't dominate factor in the decisions.

 Chongara wrote:
EDIT: This if course assumes that your assumption of it being a cost issue is correct. This obviously doesn't apply if cost wasn't dominate factor in the decisions.

Dragonskin was a huge drama about a decade ago. The army was unhappy with early tests where a significant portion of the vests provided were not up to quality standards, and the makers of Dragon Skin handled that criticism pretty badly. The two parties negotiated new test conditions and it got pretty antagonistic. The contractor started making complaints that the army was tanking the tests to avoid having to pay for the higher priced armour, while the army eventually ruled that the body armour failed in higher temperatures making it useless.

Exactly who is right and who is wrong in all of that I have no idea, and probably no-one outside of the original testing would ever really know for certain if they engineered the tests to fail, but I'll tell you one thing - if the DoD was given all the money in the world tomorrow, they wouldn't spend it on Dragon Skin. They've made their minds up, for one reason or another.

So the argument that if money wasn't spend or potentially wasted on integration then you'd get Dragon Skin just doesn't work.

Women held us back in physical task's every time, some sections that were all male had to switch out for females to spread them around

as all male sections were "unfair" as they'd win every physical tasking

Are these stats similar to what is found during deployments or operations?