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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

Is that because their armor and ballistic skill is a point lower?

Relapse wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

lol, I was just busting your chops haha (I actually do know some cav scouts, they usually get really upset when you tell them they aren't as good as infantry).

Is that because their armor and ballistic skill is a point lower?

Ballistic Skill maybe... but armor?? ohh feth no. Cav guys/tankers have things like "Death before dismount" and, when I was in 3d ACR, my "ruck march" was from the parking lot where my POV was, to the motorpool with my gear, when I loaded it into my vehicle for field exercises.

And remember, Light Infantry is one of the biggest oxymorons in the military

Gitzbitah wrote:


The only alternative I can see is replace the arbitrary pull up test with a series of combat activities that must be completed to a certain level in order to pass. Say, hauling ammo drums, pulling a wounded trooper back into a foxhole.

We have that already, it's called the Combat Fitness Test. You take both a PFT and a CFT every year, usually Jan-Jun is "PFT season" and July-Dec is "CFT season".

 Ouze wrote:

If the requirements are a realistic requirement of what is expected of a combat Marine, the standards should not be changed. However I also don't see any reason not to alter basic training regimens to include more upper body strength training opportunities for women, either - it would serve the best interests of recruits and the Corps both.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If it is essential for marines to do three pull ups, and that is a difficult task for women, they can compensate by having extra training in it.

I'm not sure how much additional training will help. A female friend of mine (officer, and prior enlisted) spent most of 2013 in the gym trying to improve her upper body strength in preparation for the new PFT standard, with negligible results. I think she's out of the Corps now (a great leader and very knowledgeable, but also couldn't shoot worth a gak).* Another female officer I know is a total beast; I think she has bigger arms than I do, and would probably have no problems doing pull-ups.

Like so many other things in life, you either "have it" or you don't, IMO.

*Political BS definitely plays a huge role in my not-so-beloved Corps. Our squadron CO was female. When it was time to select a LT to send on the MEU, she selected this particular female, saying it would be "a good opportunity" for her. Said female LT protested vociferously. The MEU is almost all male, she was uncomfortable with the idea, had no interest in going, and there were about a dozen male LT's all chomping at the bit to take her place. The CO sent her anyway. Grrrl Power! *rolls eyes*

 djones520 wrote:

You're right, there are men who do have a harder time meeting those standards. I have incredibly long arms, so doing push-ups is a lot more difficult for me then shorter stockier men. I have to "travel" further then most people while doing push-ups, so I technically have to work harder. The standard is the standard though, so I have to meet it.

I too have long arms. Back in my Army days I just focused on doing wide-arm push-ups. It significantly reduces your travel distance so suddenly banging out 70+ in 2 minutes is easy.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

Which doesn't surprise me one bit. In my IOC class, I felt like one of the smaller guys @ 5'11"-170lbs. About 35-45% of the class failed the initial Combat Endurance Test, myself included (we all completed it, but were just too slow, around ~8 hours). Definitely the most physically demanding and grueling day of my life. But if you FINISH the CET, albeit slowly, you are simply required to take the "remedial CET" which basically boils down to having one of your recovery-day Saturdays ruined with another grueling PT event. According to this article, 13 of the 14 female IOC failures haven't even made it past the CET.

But the real breaker in combat performance, in my admittedly combat-inexperienced opinion, is the slow grinding of your body and mind over longer durations.

There's a lot of talk about upper-body strength, but I rarely recall doing anything pull-up-like during field exercises. Maybe climbing in windows in an urban op, but usually you have help for that. Spending a week in the field is a combo of walking around with 150lbs of gear and staying mentally sharp for 20 hours a day, or more. People "go internal" (i.e. think about their personal discomfort and not much else) after just 1-2 days. Big beefy guys (who can handle the burden of weight slightly better) and thin wiry guys with insane cardio-respiratory endurance (they stay sharp because their body has an easier time keeping their brain fed with oxygen) seem to handle this sort of work best. As a medium-sized guy with sub-par (compared to my peers) endurance.....I tended to hit my limit of mental clarity fairly quickly. Having a rapid, keen sense of tactical vision and an encyclopedic knowledge of military hardware is useless outside of sand table exercises in a classroom if your brain just plain isn't functioning. I washed out about 85% of the way through.

I bet most females get broken by the weight loads before any cardio advantages they have kick in. Across both the Army and the Marine Corps, the number of females I know who suffered lower-body injuries during ruck marches, even with comparatively small packs of 50-70lbs, is off the charts.

This article talks about injuries and physical differences.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/13/data-predicts-spike-in-female-troop-injuries.html?ESRC=army.nl

And brings up points I've made about this before.