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.

 d-usa wrote:
Not really related to this story, but I wasn't sure if it is worth starting a new post over it:

But it appears that one of my Oklahoma congress critters is demanding that the Ranger school is handing over the training records of the two women that completed the program to make sure that they really deserved to graduate.

I'm sure he never bothered to check on a single guy that graduated.

I've heard several rumors, a couple from very credible people who would have access to how they did. Some, not so much...

The one I believe the most is they were allowed to continue until they quit or finally made it once they passed the Darby phase. Hence the higher than normal amount of allowed overall recycles (and recycles per phase). You won't find a lot of male students offered 2-3 shots at Dahlonega after taking 2-3 to make it through Benning.


Having said that, I've also heard (and believe) the ladies did very well on peer evals. That says a lot. The RIs can (and will) always find a way to fail you on a patrol, but if you are not pulling your weight your peer evals will show it regardless.

We'll see. I actually hope they DO release their records by phase to include their spot reports, peer evals and patrol evals to lay the controversy to rest.

 motyak wrote:
In that context it'd be normal for her boss in whichever company she is going to after Ranger school to say "Wait what really? Can I see her results?".

d-usa is (if I understand correctly) talking about a member of his state's congress asking for results from someone in training for the federal army to "verify" it...for whatever ridiculous purpose that dropkick of a congressman has. Which doesn't affect him or the laws he passes, because Oklahoma doesn't control the US army (thank god), their training standards or anything related to this lass passing Ranger school.

Do you see the difference between that and your example with the army book?

True, but if it is something he is interested in is it really worth vilifying him for asking to see the results?

I mean these 2 women could have failed (hypothetically) and him revealing this could raise questions about how much the military might lie to paint themselves better etc.

I don't see what is so wrong about asking to see the results. If the guys in charge say " none of your "business" then they can do that. Personally I would think that their test would be shown to say that it can be done and then the skeptics would have to back down a bit.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Reading through this report, seeing some things that don't add up, most particularly:

A significant number of untrained men are more accurate than trained women.

How the *hell* did that happen?

Until we can see their methodology (which I have not been able to find) I have to question this report, since it seems to fly in the face of other countries studies.

None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion). All of the non-Infantry Marines involved (male and female) would have gone through MCT (Marine Combat Training), which is basically a shorter version of ITB for non-Infantry Marines. Calling them "untrained" isn't really accurate. They had just had a shorter period of instruction prior to being involved in the study. ITB is a 59 day course and MCT is a 29 day course. Calling them untrained makes it sound like they hadn't had any infantry-type training at all, which isn't the case.

Depending on MOS, Marines who complete ITB also get more advanced, MOS-specific training with crew-served weapons like mortars and machine guns, and LAVs for Marines that are in those respective pipelines. That could also explain the different results with the .50 cal. Marines in the machine gunner pipeline would likely get more training on the M2 going through ITB than non-infantry Marines who had only done MCT.

 Hordini wrote:

None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).

Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.


On the flip side, I find it improbably that the Corps is so opposed to having to dig his and hers latrines to go this far.


(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).

Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.





(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)

It was pretty clear in the Marine Corps Times article here. The integrated task force was made up of volunteers.

The Marines' Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force involved about 400 Marine volunteers, roughly 25 percent of whom were women. Over the course of nine months, teams that simulated integrated rifle, weapons, mechanized and artillery units trained to infantry standards and then executed a repetitive series of skills assessments under human testing conditions.

While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs. One task force unit, a provisional rifle platoon, attempted to mitigate this problem by comparing the performance of male and female troops who received no formal infantry training.

In this case, "no formal infantry training" would mean "didn't go to ITB so they don't possess an 03XX MOS." All of those Marines would have still attended MCT.

The weapons that were tested are all the weapons that are normally used by infantry units and weapons that Marines are trained on at ITB. As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

None of the men were actually "untrained." Some of them just hadn't gone to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion).

Well, that's just it. We have no idea what the criteria were or how these guys (and gals) were picked (Experience? Lack of Experience? Hair color?). Or even what team weapons were tested besides the M2. The results sound pretty bad, but we have no context for them, or why they differ so badly from not only other countries, but other branches. The fact that this result (with no context) came out so shortly before the SecDef is supposed to make his decision seems a bit convenient.


On the flip side, I find it improbably that the Corps is so opposed to having to dig his and hers latrines to go this far.


(Interesting note: Manshuk Mametova, one of the few women named Hero of the Soviet Union, was a machine gunner)

While the formal writeup might not have been released, it's not like they completely rewrote the training schedule, and at the beginning of the process they announced information about how the females were selected. So most infantry Marines can tell you what the training was like, what weapons were used, etc, and if you do a bit of digging you can find some of the details about how females were selected. I don't recall exactly off the top of my head, but I believe they offered females that performed well at recruit training the opportunity to volunteer, with the understanding that after graduation they would return to their previously assigned MOS training. Don't quote me on that, though.


Edit: hordini beat me to it.

 Hordini wrote:
As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.

All branches were ordered to conduct this study (or broadly similar ones with the goal of identifying the role women would play in their respective branches and what possible outcomes would be) with the deadline coming up rather soon. So far, the Marine one is the only one that they publicly released the results.

I really want to see their methodology. I'm reading some conflicting things about it. Particularly volunteers qualifications were held to two different standards of fitness, one of men, and one for women. The marines did not train together in integrated units, the squads were only integrated for 24-36 hours.

Both of those could cause the result to be skewed.


So, we'll see what the full report says, and then pass judgement.

I distinctly remember during Team week having to go down to the Ranges to mark Targets for the requals.

Team week in Marine Boot Camp is the week directly following Range week, Its basically a week long feth feth game and you get sent out in small groups to parts of Parris Island (no idea about San Diego).

Anyone who failed to Qualify as a Marksmen (Lowest passing grade) had to spend the entire week Requalling on the Range with the understanding that regardless of how well they do on requal they will be a pizza box (Marskmen badge looks like a pizza box) until they reshoot at their next unit during the next fiscal year.

Anyway back to the story. At Requals the number of male Marines compared to female marines was probably a 1:2 ratio, with females outnumbering the males rather heavily, which is a big surprise because Parris Island has 4 Recruit Training Battalions, 3 Male (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and 1 female (4th). a
I didn't really understand this until I went to my Unit and did a bunch of CMP ranges and realized that a lot of the female marines had a border line fear of recoil and hot brass. these two things caused them to jerk the shots a lot. This is all personal experience so take it with a grain of salt.


As far as why females did really well with the Ma deuce? Because its the best machine gun in the history of the military, and its a tripod mounted beast that has traverse nobs instead of free floating, which means its more of a math problem then anything else.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
As far as the results compared to other branches, no other branch did a study. The Marine Corps was the only one.

All branches were ordered to conduct this study (or broadly similar ones with the goal of identifying the role women would play in their respective branches and what possible outcomes would be) with the deadline coming up rather soon. So far, the Marine one is the only one that they publicly released the results.

I really want to see their methodology. I'm reading some conflicting things about it. Particularly volunteers qualifications were held to two different standards of fitness, one of men, and one for women. The marines did not train together in integrated units, the squads were only integrated for 24-36 hours.

Both of those could cause the result to be skewed.


So, we'll see what the full report says, and then pass judgement.

That is actually completely false, the unit trained together for months before the tests started.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

That is actually completely false, the unit trained together for months before the tests started.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/11/navy-secretary-criticizes-controversial-marine-corps-gender-integration-study/

As I said, conflicting information, so I'm holding off judgment until I see the actual study in it's number filled glory. Post makes it sound like they were segregated until testing commenced in their article on the SECNAV's criticism of it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

That is actually completely false, the unit trained together for months before the tests started.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/11/navy-secretary-criticizes-controversial-marine-corps-gender-integration-study/

As I said, conflicting information, so I'm holding off judgment until I see the actual study in it's number filled glory. Post makes it sound like they were segregated until testing commenced in their article on the SECNAV's criticism of it.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/grunt-life-marines-dish-corps-women-combat-experiment/71632666/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Lance Cpl. Callahan Brown kept losing her tentmates.

The 20-year-old Marine had spent months in co-ed training at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, before moving west to Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, for a series of combat assessments in grimy field conditions — the closest any female Marine has been permitted to get to infantry life and training.

I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?

I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.

Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:

"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."

This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?

I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.

Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:

"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."

This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.

So both the men and women aren't professional enough. Which is hilarious as for all the resistance there was about allowing homosexuals into the forces you never heard of homosexual soldiers reducing the effectiveness of their units.

Seems it's the heterosexuals who can't keep their emotions/sexual organs in check

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

I am more inclined to believe a first hand account then a washington post article that doesn't make any sense to what they are saying. 24-36 hours of what?

I am too, but again, I want to see how they came to these conclusions. Giving me a group of results in a vacuum does not make much of a case.

Reading the article you linked, this sprang out at me.:

"He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said."

This is the issue the Israelis ran into, if I recall correctly. it wasn't that the female troops could not fight effectively, but rather that male troops serving alongside them would change their behavior, which lead to issues where men were getting killed.

So both the men and women aren't professional enough. Which is hilarious as for all the resistance there was about allowing homosexuals into the forces you never heard of homosexual soldiers reducing the effectiveness of their units.

Seems it's the heterosexuals who can't keep their emotions/sexual organs in check

Actually I was only opposed to repealing Dont Ask Don't tell because it was one of my favorite things to make jokes about

Random marine does something feminine, "Look Marine, I am not going to ask, and I sure as Feth don't want you to tell me, but could you stop being so fething obvious?"

In reality the Military didn't give a flying feth about gays in the military, there was a few, maybe one in twenty or even higher that was openly opposed to it. But the VAST majority of marines don't care who the feth is next to them so long as they are pulling their weight and not falling asleep on post.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So both the men and women aren't professional enough. .

Not exactly. They found it happens even if they have no idea who the other person is. Men and women just have some ground in kneejerk responses that are hard to overcome. Guys tend to try and help a woman regardless of if they're in a relationship or not, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/25/marine-general-marine-infantry-standards-need-to-change/

General Dunford has officially asked SecNav to block females from specific Combat arms MOS's and Recon units.

However, being Marines and prepared for most contingencies it appears that the USMC is going to increase the bare minimums for joining combat arms, in what appears to be a way to eliminate the ability of most females from even qualifying for Combat Arms.

I remember not to long ago I said that if the USMC was forced to allow females into Infantry they would find a way around it and here is the first example of the USMC dealing with a SecNav more concerned with being a SJW then running the worlds largest Navy/Marine Corps.

So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.

So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner. If they try and play glass ceiling games and get caught, they'll have SecDef all over their ass in a heartbeat.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.

So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner.

Well the recommendation hasn't been shot down out of hand yet by the SecNav, but it most likely will be because even before the START of the experiment He went on record saying he wouldn't allow woman to be banned from Infantry in the USMC. Which is funny because he accused the Marines of going into the experiment with their minds already made up...something something kettle black?

But even if the SecNav does shoot it down, technically Dunford now outranks him because he just became CJCS and the #1 military adviser to the president. Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
So... the SECNAV shoots down their reccomendations, and they increase requirements.

So what do they do with the women who pass it? (and you know people will try until someone pulls it off) Seems at that point they'll have painted themselves into a corner. If they try and play glass ceiling games and get caught, they'll have SecDef all over their ass in a heartbeat.

I think they're banking on a Republican win in 2016.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.

You do realize that getting women out of rear echelon is the whole point of this, and the Marines being that obvious about it would get a real shitstorm going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

I think they're banking on a Republican win in 2016.

I think so too. And unless the Republicans can get rid of Trump, I think they're going to see their hopes dashed. But, that's entirely OT.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beyond that even if they go ahead and allow woman into infantry, and even if a handful actually pass the higher standards I have a feeling they will do something similar to what the IDF does, a Small integrated or all female combat unit that is given rear echelon jobs with low risks, such as guarding a border or camp guard at the bigger bases.

You do realize that getting women out of rear echelon is the whole point of this, and the Marines being that obvious about it would get a real shitstorm going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

I think they're banking on a Republican win in 2016.

I think so too. And unless the Republicans can get rid of Trump, I think they're going to see their hopes dashed. But, that's entirely OT.

your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth. The only thing Marines care about is Mission Accomplishment. If having woman in a combat unit would help that they will gladly incorporate them. But since it appears to be the opposite they will fight tooth and nail to keep them out. And even if the POTUS forces them to accept it, they will find a loop hole. Marines are the United States ELITE light infantry, they care about getting the job done and not much else. So beyond that SecNav can do whatever he wants.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth.

Neither did Dugout Doug... until he was former General Douglas MacArthur.

You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

your forgetting the USMC doesn't give a flying Feth.

Neither did Dugout Doug... until he was former General Douglas MacArthur.

You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.

General MacArthur was replaced, not because he angered the president, which he did in spades. But because he showed potential for disobeying President Truman and mobilizing the Taiwanese Chinese to invade Mainland China. He was also replaced because he was so comprehensibly wrong on several occasions such as NK's intent before the war, the appalling training standards he allowed in Japan after WWII that led to high casualties in Korean. The fact that he was frequently given solid intelligence reporting large formations of Chinese moving into North Korea and instead of preparing for this he refused to believe them.

Also, I never said the Marines wouldn't be smart about it, they will use the females the best way they can be utilized. the USMC is to small to squander what little resources it has. So if the Politically Correct Machine forces the Corps to have females in Infantry and other combat MOS's then they will make use of those troops. IF they aren't as effective as Men then the corps will find a way to utilize them that doesn't jeopardize the mission.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
General MacArthur was replaced, not because he angered the president, which he did in spades. But because he showed potential for disobeying President Truman and mobilizing the Taiwanese Chinese to invade Mainland China.

And, that different from what I just said... how? And he didn't just have the potential to disobey, he did. As his own men pointed out to him, at the time.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I never said the Marines wouldn't be smart about it,

I didn't say they wouldn't either. I said that your suggestion on how they would do it was not a good idea, and they would need a better one than that, as it had a good chance of backfiring.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You can not give a rats ass what Washington thinks, but you have to be smart about it or they just start replacing officers until they find one that will go along with whatever agenda they're pushing. Doing something like you describe would bring a lot of unfriendly attention down on the Corps and POTUS outranks everyone. Cause him grief and you might just get to add an arctic service ribbon.

I agree in theory, but you can only have a revolving door going so long before people start to take notice.

I have no more insight into the Marines' plan with this than the next guy, but my theory is that they're banking everything on digging in their heels long enough to get someone in office who cares more about capability and readiness (the needs of the service, one might say) than the wants of the individual. If they can stall out for a couple years, they might head this off at the pass.

They've got some decent facts backing them up, to my mind. A woman's yet to make it through IOC. Less than half of women are able to hit the three pull-up minimum standard three years after the Marines said it would be mandatory for everybody. And now, this study.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/02/new-marine-commandant-personally-insulting-to-talk-about-women-in-combat/

New commandant of the Marine Corps sticks by what General Dunford said and further criticized SecNav Mabus.

A it more on this:


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/report-finds-female-marines-cannot-meet-some-standards-for-special-forces/?intcmp=hpbt2

The USMC also is publishing gender neutral standards for all combat arms MOSs which will make it harder for males to get certain MOS and very difficult for females. Seems they are still asking for waivers to keep some MOS male only, and the new standards will be in place if that fails.

Relapse wrote:
A it more on this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/report-finds-female-marines-cannot-meet-some-standards-for-special-forces/?intcmp=hpbt2

On the up side, the improvement in performance in tests involving both "cognitive and physical activities" by mixed groups over single gender sounds good for combat engineers.

I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..


Long ago, Sun Tzu was challenged by King Helü of Wu to prove his theories of warfare. The king claimed that it should be easy, based on Sun Tzu's principals, to turn any rabble into good soldiers, and so commanded that Sun Tzu turn the king's mistresses into a competent military unit. Despite angering the king by executing one of the mistresses for failure to follow orders, he went one better and made them the finest unit in the armies of Wu. Or, so it's said, anyway.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A it more on this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/report-finds-female-marines-cannot-meet-some-standards-for-special-forces/?intcmp=hpbt2

On the up side, the improvement in performance in tests involving both "cognitive and physical activities" by mixed groups over single gender sounds good for combat engineers.

I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..


Long ago, Sun Tzu was challenged by King Helü of Wu to prove his theories of warfare. The king claimed that it should be easy, based on Sun Tzu's principals, to turn any rabble into good soldiers, and so commanded that Sun Tzu turn the king's mistresses into a competent military unit. Despite angering the king by executing one of the mistresses for failure to follow orders, he went one better and made them the finest unit in the armies of Wu. Or, so it's said, anyway.

which is why the Zhou dynasty was replaced by the Qin dynasty

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..

Part of the reason is, female performance in combat up until now has in many cases not always included many tasks that infantrymen have to be able to do, such as long movements under load. Getting into a firefight while mounted and performing well is great, and no one is taking anything away from that, but it's not the same thing as being able to do long movements under under heavy load, keep from getting hurt, and be ready to fight when you get to where you are going (or en route).

There are a lot of different ways to be "in combat." Pilots can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Truck drivers can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Any combat support or combat service support personnel could end up in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. While there will be some skill overlap in all of those situations (such as being able to shoot, for example), just saying that women have been in combat and performed well doesn't mean that women are generally going to perform well in the infantry.

I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the toll that sustained movements under load take, and how much easier it is for women to get injured while doing it.