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.

 Ketara wrote:
An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.

I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).

This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.

It is, indeed, possible that they could redesign both weapons and common load bearing kit to be easier for females to manage.

At what point do we start asking what we're gaining from all of this time, effort, and money aside from fulfilling a political goal, though? We're not increasing efficiency, we're not reducing cost, we're not extending capability.

Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.

I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).

This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.

It is, indeed, possible that they could redesign both weapons and common load bearing kit to be easier for females to manage.

At what point do we start asking what we're gaining from all of this time, effort, and money aside from fulfilling a political goal, though? We're not increasing efficiency, we're not reducing cost, we're not extending capability.

You're gaining the ability to double your recruiting pool for the marines. By coming up with a second set of equipment, whilst you do complicate the supply chain slightly, that's only the case if you insist that male-specific equipment be produced. If something unisex can be produced, you may find that the capabilities of the rest of your armed forces are enhanced as well (with the ability for the men to carry extra additional rations/tech/etc).

In short, this is about expanding the pool of available manpower resources the USA can draw on in a major war significantly. What's learned here can also be applied to women in other combat arms than the Marines.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.

Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.

Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".

 Ketara wrote:
The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.

How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?

But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.

Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.

Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".

He also served two years in the Navy as a surface warfare officer from 1970 to 1972 aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock (CLG-4),[1

im sorry i over looked his 2 years in the navy aboard a Ship. And I will stick to what I said about him not knowing his butt from a battleship. 2 years in the military equates to about 1 year of training and maybe if he was insanely lucky, 1 float.

Beyond that, YES you do need to be in the military to understand it. Thats like me making decisions on how to perform brain surgery because I was in EMS for 2 years. You didn't serve I understand that, but put it in perspective. He is a career politician who joined the navy for his political career and got out on the shortest contract possible. (Hell I had to look it up because I didn't think 2 year officer programs existed).

But even then, he was in the Navy as a Surface Warfare officer. His expertise on infantry is limited to what his advisers are telling him, and since the USMC is kind of an expert in Infantry, he is ignoring their recommendations to push for Social justice. IF you look into his career and specifically his tenure as SecNav you will notice that he is a SJW.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.

Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:p

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.

Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".

He also served two years in the Navy as a surface warfare officer from 1970 to 1972 aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock (CLG-4),[1

im sorry i over looked his 2 years in the navy aboard a Ship. And I will stick to what I said about him not knowing his butt from a battleship. 2 years in the military equates to about 1 year of training and maybe if he was insanely lucky, 1 float.

Beyond that, YES you do need to be in the military to understand it. Thats like me making decisions on how to perform brain surgery because I was in EMS for 2 years. You didn't serve I understand that, but put it in perspective. He is a career politician who joined the navy for his political career and got out on the shortest contract possible. (Hell I had to look it up because I didn't think 2 year officer programs existed).

But even then, he was in the Navy as a Surface Warfare officer. His expertise on infantry is limited to what his advisers are telling him, and since the USMC is kind of an expert in Infantry, he is ignoring their recommendations to push for Social justice. IF you look into his career and specifically his tenure as SecNav you will notice that he is a SJW.

From the sounds of things, he's going to get people killed with his PC push to get women into infantry slots.

 Ketara wrote:



You're gaining the ability to double your recruiting pool for the marines. By coming up with a second set of equipment, whilst you do complicate the supply chain slightly, that's only the case if you insist that male-specific equipment be produced. If something unisex can be produced, you may find that the capabilities of the rest of your armed forces are enhanced as well (with the ability for the men to carry extra additional rations/tech/etc).

In short, this is about expanding the pool of available manpower resources the USA can draw on in a major war significantly. What's learned here can also be applied to women in other combat arms than the Marines.

Redesigning and procuring new equipment isn't as easy as you make it out to be, and pushing women into infantry roles isn't really solving a problem. Like Jake said, the Marines aren't struggling to reach their recruiting goals.

As for the effect on the unit, having a few members with inferior physical capability is dangerous. What happens when your female Marine, with her redesigned weapon and gear, sees a fellow Marine go down next to her and she needs to carry him out of the line of fire? In your fantasy you've got guys carrying extra gear for the gals, so her pulling the casualty is even less likely.

Re: Mabus he's not an infantry guy. Expecting a sailor to know about the infantry is equivalent to that thing they do in movies where a character may be a botanist, but he has no problem jumping into quantum physics. Refer to this factual diagram:

I keep seeing that women are 6 times more likely to be injured than men in an infantry role. How many people end up having to care for the injured one, say in a field deployment situation and what would be the effect on the mission?

Relapse wrote:
I keep seeing that women are 6 times more likely to be injured than men in an infantry role. How many people end up having to care for the injured one, say in a field deployment situation and what would be the effect on the mission?

depends on the injury, but in a combat situation it takes between 1-4 Marines to CASEVAC one wounded Marine. 1 if the wound is light or not life threatening. 2 if the situation is dire and bodies can't be spared and 4 if he is critical and NEEDS to be Evacuated Immediately.

But it isn't ever just those 1-4 Marines who are off the line. You then have 1-2 fireteams that are weakened by the absence of Marines, you have a squad that has to move the casualties back to the rear and post security for them while the doc works on them.

In the case of these specific types of injuries though your looking at injured/broken feet, ankles legs and hips predominantly. So what your going to do is have that specific female evac'd back to the base and sent home early from deployment. It wouldn't be too mission degrading in the short term but in the long term losing 1-10 bodies due to preventable injures seriously reduces your combat efficiency. And the worst part is that sometimes you need every trigger puller you can get your hands on. Battle of Marjah for example.

CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.

How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?

But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.

You think too small and current term. Yes, you are correct that as things stand there is no issue with the recruitment pool. By that logic though, provisions should never be made for advancing technological designs or streamlining any sort of current procedures either, as both function well enough for current requirements.

In reality, the Government needs to be prepared for a situation of all-out war should it ever become necessary, and having a larger recruiting base in such a scenario would greatly help in that sort of scenario. What's more, by making these considerations and adjustments now, it is possible that females in current roles can benefit from the lessons learned, both in squad deployment and future weapon design, which in turn enhances the future capability of the US armed forces, even if the total war scenario is never required.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Redesigning and procuring new equipment isn't as easy as you make it out to be,

A new backpack with adjusted straps would not be a major technological advance, or particularly hard to source manufacture for. If that's a concern, you have bigger issues. Coming up with a new standard infantry weapon will also most likely occur within the next ten to thirty years regardless, so it would not be overly onerous to add a weight limitation to the specifications when they are placed out to tender, and prototypes trialled. When the benefit is a unisex weapon that is easier for everyone to handle, it's a potential requirement worth considering.

Also, one of my research specialties is military procurement from and research co-operation between private industry by governments in a historical context, so I daresay I know more about the potential complications than anyone who hasn't been, or isn't engaged in a job role relating to it.

and pushing women into infantry roles isn't really solving a problem.

Who is pushing? The adaptation of the armed forces to a modern context and future shifts is a subject worthy of consideration. We don't march in columns with muskets anymore, and we don't insist all tanks are attached piecemeal to infantry units. If you want to assume that future warfare will not include women in infantry roles to any substantial degree, when all it could take is some minor force reorganisation, some form of ankle brace, a slight weapon spec adjustment, and a new backpack, feel free. You might be right. The biological difficulties may be too much to overcome. But you also may well turn out to be wrong.

As for the effect on the unit, having a few members with inferior physical capability is dangerous. What happens when your female Marine, with her redesigned weapon and gear, sees a fellow Marine go down next to her and she needs to carry him out of the line of fire? In your fantasy you've got guys carrying extra gear for the gals, so her pulling the casualty is even less likely.

'Fantasy'.

The only thing fantastical here is the apparent resistance to consideration of future force organisation and recruitment for optimum efficiency.

Firstly, your scenario assumes it's not a woman only unit, in which case 'she' could be pulling a 'she' who is lighter, second, the extra equipment was simply a vague consideration as to how lightening a gun could make an infantryman capable of carrying more. So he'd weigh no more than he currently does with a heavier gun, and possibly less.. Thirdly, you're assuming that she'll feel the need to carry him AND all of his equipment, when if a soldier is wounded, the last thing she'll be worrying about is making sure to carry his rations with them too.

Finally, you're also ignoring the benefits that research in this direction could have towards integrating women into less rigorous units than the Marines. I'm not advocating that it be done, chop chop. I'm advocating that further tests be undertaken and consideration for design be made for the next batch of procurement. The way that you've clearly jumped into opposing me without actually reading what I've said speaks volumes about your apparent neutrality on this.

Just give all jarheads crew served tactical nukes, flamethrowers, and jumpsuits. It won't be an issue.


And remember, the only good bug is a dead bug.

 Ketara wrote:

CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.

How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?

But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.

You think too small and current term. Yes, you are correct that as things stand there is no issue with the recruitment pool. By that logic though, provisions should never be made for advancing technological designs or streamlining any sort of current procedures either, as both function well enough for current requirements.

In reality, the Government needs to be prepared for a situation of all-out war should it ever become necessary, and having a larger recruiting base in such a scenario would greatly help in that sort of scenario. What's more, by making these considerations and adjustments now, it is possible that females in current roles can benefit from the lessons learned, both in squad deployment and future weapon design, which in turn enhances the future capability of the US armed forces, even if the total war scenario is never required.

You seem to have missed the point that the '50% of the population' you are worried about IS being recruited. By all the services. And there are currently a ton of specialties/jobs they are eligible for. So that 'larger recruiting base' is already 'larger' in that females can and do enlist and/or enter via the various commissioning sources. Even in the vastly unlikely 'all-out war' scenario, you can't get a 'larger recruiting base' by opening recruiting to females, because it is ALREADY open to females. And in that unlikely scenario, the logistics/support (to include combat support and combat service support such as military police, intel, signal, and everything else would need to grow at a larger ratio than just infantry, and those are all currently open to everyone eligible to enlist.

What part of that is hard to understand or accept? It isn't opinion or theoretical, females ARE being recruited.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.

Men are better at fighting in combat than women on average. That's where I think the problem lies. The test did say that the top 10th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men, in some things. That means that there are probably some women (a small percentage) who are actually better soldiers than men in the bottom 50th percentile.

I appreciate that most women just aren't physically up to the task, but then a good portion of men also aren't physically up to the task. The people who are should be judged on their own merits, not their gender.

The current weapon in use now weighs less than 7 pounds I believe.

Since very few women make the cut in your fantasy odds are it will be a man she will be pulling out. And I had to pull guys out. I was a 300 score guy on the PFT every time. And it still wasn't easy.

And when I was in marines carried all there equipment/rations on them most of time. And you rarely have time to cherry pick what the injured soldier needs or doesn't need before you decide to pull him out.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.

Men are better at fighting in combat than women on average. That's where I think the problem lies. The test did say that the top 10th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men, in some things. That means that there are probably some women (a small percentage) who are actually better soldiers than men in the bottom 50th percentile.

I appreciate that most women just aren't physically up to the task, but then a good portion of men also aren't physically up to the task. The people who are should be judged on their own merits, not their gender.

But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...

There comes a point where between losing training slots to folks a lot less likely to pass and having a portion of your force more likely to be more significantly injured (effecting unit readiness/deployability) that it just does't make sense to incur the additional cost in order to be 'fair'. Washing out 9 females to get the one who can pass took training slots away from 9 guys, of who 6-7 generally pass. Over time, that one female is a lot more likely to be hurt/invalided out than the 6-7 guys who make it through. And there is no real benefit to the force except some very misguided concept of 'fair'.

Just think how much better the Patriots could have done last year if they had opened up their recruiting to females, and decided a certain percentage of the slots on their roster should be filled by females.

 CptJake wrote:


You seem to have missed the point that the '50% of the population' you are worried about IS being recruited. By all the services. And there are currently a ton of specialties/jobs they are eligible for. So that 'larger recruiting base' is already 'larger' in that females can and do enlist and/or enter via the various commissioning sources.

If you'd read to the end and grasp the context, you'd understand that the 'larger recruiting pool' comment refers to the marine infantry specifically, for whom that 50% is not being utilised at all.

You know, considering several of the following comments I made were all about how taking gender into account when designing equipment could potentially increase efficiency for 'females in current roles' or 'less rigorous units than the Marines', I would have thought you'd have grasped that I do actually, in fact, know that women do actually work in other jobs in the US military. But just in case that passed you by (as the quoted comment would heavily appear to indicate), yes, I am aware of that fact.

 CptJake wrote:
But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...

Sorry, I must have missed that part. I see that females were more prone to injury, again on average, but that could be caused by lower percentiles dragging the average down. How do you deduce that a woman in the top 10th percentile is more injury prone than a man in the bottom 50th? VO2 max was indicated as important component in some injuries, and that is an area where the best women overlapped with men.

I don't think filtering candidates out needs to be expensive or time consuming. In the UK we have weight restrictions for infantry, over 60kg (132lbs), coupled with a basic fitness test like 20 chin ups in 3 mins, you would be able to filter out nearly all female candidates, without gender being an issue.

This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.
On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field, and with redesign of equipment should be shoulder to shoulder with the men.
I don't know if anyone mentioned the Israelis in this, but I'm sure there is first hand knowledge among some of the posters here about how the women are worked into their combat forces. This could be enlightening if someone could share that again.

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.

You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.

You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.

It seems odd that a mod should have to be reminded of rule #1, but I'll take this moment and do it.

 Ketara wrote:
Who is pushing?

That's a tad disingenuous, isn't it?

This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.

And that's the only way it could happen, to be fair. Female integration into Navy fighter squadrons was pushed, and went disastrously for the first wave, but it did eventually get better. Could we get by fine without female Hornet/Rhino drivers now? Absolutely. Does it detract from readiness/efficiency/etc? No, not appreciably.

But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is. The only benefits are political.

Relapse wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.

You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.

It seems odd that a mod should have to be reminded of rule #1, but I'll take this moment

Get your kicks where you can, eh?

and do it.

I believe I was perfectly polite? If the slightly sarky misrepresentation of a discussion between others had an alternative motivation that somehow went over my head though, I'd be more than happy to retract my comment if you'd care to explain it to me.

Who was trying to appear smart? It just seemed as though people on both sides were voicing concerns and solutions.

Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Who is pushing?

That's a tad disingenuous, isn't it?

This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.

The word 'pushing' was used in response to one of my posts, and as such, I assumed it was being used specifically in relation to myself. I wouldn't care to comment on the politicking over in the US administration, by pure virtue of the fact that I'm not privy to the reasoning of senior US military command.

But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is.

Possibly not. I'm open to the argument that the gains are not worth the hassle to an extent. But I do think (as I keep saying) that I see potential positive material spinoff for women across the services in terms of equipment and suchlike, even if the final results come back as a negative.

Relapse wrote:
Who was trying to appear smart? It just seemed as though people on both sides were voicing concerns and solutions.

See, now that's a far more evenhanded description.

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Who was trying to appear smart? It just seemed as though people on both sides were voicing concerns and solutions.

See, now that's a far more evenhanded description.

I am celebrated on Dakka for my even handed, well reasoned explanations.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...

Sorry, I must have missed that part. I see that females were more prone to injury, again on average, but that could be caused by lower percentiles dragging the average down. How do you deduce that a woman in the top 10th percentile is more injury prone than a man in the bottom 50th? VO2 max was indicated as important component in some injuries, and that is an area where the best women overlapped with men.

I don't think filtering candidates out needs to be expensive or time consuming. In the UK we have weight restrictions for infantry, over 60kg (132lbs), coupled with a basic fitness test like 20 chin ups in 3 mins, you would be able to filter out nearly all female candidates, without gender being an issue.

Well said. I did not think of that.

Females are injured at a higher rate regardless of where in the physical fitness test they fell. Throughout my time in the Corps I knew 1 woman who could have made it into infantry and not gotten hurt. We affectionately referred to her as Grandma because she was 30 where most marines were 18-22. And I asked her once when this nonsense was first kicking off what she thought and even she thought it was a TERRIBLE idea. SO as said before, if the majority of females in the Marines think its a terrible idea it might be....a Terrible idea.

As far as gear? you have no idea how hard it is to acquire anything remotely new in the USMC. You also don't have a clue how hard the USMC does invest its limited resources in coming up with new LBE (Load Bearing Equipment). You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.

Going back to the involving females in the military during a total war scenario. That has been done before, it was called WWII. Female Marines took over jobs in logistis, admin, intel and everywhere else to free up male marines to be infantry and other combat MOS's. It worked exceptionally well.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
SO as said before, if the majority of females in the Marines think its a terrible idea it might be....a Terrible idea.

Please link the survey.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
SO as said before, if the majority of females in the Marines think its a terrible idea it might be....a Terrible idea.

Please link the survey.

go read the links already posted. As for my personnel experience and those of fellow marines who have posted. we don't have surveys because it was all done orally. If you would like you can go join the USMC and ask them yourself

Anectodes =\= data.