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.

No, I am saying it is quite possible the policies for firemen changed in two (closer to 3 now) years.

But you know that is what I meant.

He sure did. I mean, why bother talking if we know what everyone thinks.

That applies to him too.

clearly, i did't know what you thought and i didn't know what you meant. I was thinking you were referencing reports from 2013 were too old....(re-read it, and you were)

But i will say in regard to bureaucracy changes 2 years is nothing.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
It's often not talked about but a small portion male recruits washout of basic training, they are not able to complete the physical training and receive medical discharge. Women in my time had different and lower standards but still had a washout rate. I'm betting if they had to meet the same standards more would washout.

Women already have a higher washout due to injury rate than men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11469039

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496815

http://publications.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00451

No worries.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Relapse wrote:

In the Marines, though, the concept is every man is a rifleman. I'm surprised to read about two sets of standards for Airborne. It puts a huge hole in the narrative that on average, women can be as physically tough as men in a combat role.

Not sure how it is now, but when I was in military out of all the women there only about 2-3 in every 10 would have qualified for combat duty. Earlier I stated I meet a few really tough women in the military and they could easily out do 80% of the men, again they were few. I welcome them to defend the nation as ground combat troops IF they can meet the same standards as the male recruits. It's often not talked about but a small portion male recruits washout of basic training, they are not able to complete the physical training and receive medical discharge. Women in my time had different and lower standards but still had a washout rate. I'm betting if they had to meet the same standards more would washout.

When I went through MCRD, back in the day, we had about a 30% attrition rate due to people who couldn't hack it, others who got set back in training, or druggies who got nailed after they passed on their chance for amnesty.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.

I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and I certainly didn't ask them to lose. And why on Earth would I ever have to deploy in hazardous areas? Do you think if soldiers didn't exist, I'd be in Afghanistan chasing goats around? No, I'd be here minding my own business like normal.

Without soldiers you'd be speaking German right now and singing Das Lied der Deutschen.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.

I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and I certainly didn't ask them to lose. And why on Earth would I ever have to deploy in hazardous areas? Do you think if soldiers didn't exist, I'd be in Afghanistan chasing goats around? No, I'd be here minding my own business like normal.

Without soldiers you'd be speaking German right now and singing Das Lied der Deutschen.

Or Japanese for that matter.

Eh, the Japanese wanted China, they'd never be able to capture outside Asia at that point.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Without soldiers you'd be speaking German right now and singing Das Lied der Deutschen.

That is just childish speculation. Without a great many things happening exactly the way they did, I expect the most likely outcome is that I would never have been born.

Also WWII was 70 years ago, and predates the united nations, nuclear weapons, my birth, and also my fathers birth. Is that the most relevant example you can think of? What has that got to do with soldiers in the modern geopolitical setup? Was I really in any significant danger of having to learn Iraqi? I think not.

If anything soldiers should be thanking me, my taxes pay for them to have a very secure career, go traveling, and learn a trade. "Thank you for your taxes Mr Smacks."

"YW You can thank me by not trying to feed me some BS politician's line about 'defending my freedom'."

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Without soldiers you'd be speaking German right now and singing Das Lied der Deutschen.

That is just childish speculation. Without a great many things happening exactly the way they did, I expect the most likely outcome is that I would never have been born.

Also WWII was 70 years ago, and predates the united nations, nuclear weapons, my birth, and also my fathers birth. Is that the most relevant example you can think of? What has that got to do with soldiers in the modern geopolitical setup? Was I really in any significant danger of having to learn Iraqi? I think not.

If anything soldiers should be thanking me, my taxes pay for them to have a very secure career, go traveling, and learn a trade. "Thank you for your taxes Mr Smacks."

"YW You can thank me by not trying to feed me some BS politician's line about 'defending my freedom'."

Funny thing about hostile powers. They never give advanced warning.

WW2 happened awhile ago now, but it's still a cornerstone of the modern world. The US military being the powerhouse that it is today stemmed from that, which in turn has had a preventative effect from major hostilities breaking out. The next major issue i can think of was the cold war, you might be speaking russian if america hadn't maintained its military.

Actually, no, conventional military is not the reason. What you are talking about is being a nuclear power.

Becoming a nuclear power happened in the same war. The fact is the US has both, and that's a good deterrent to people starting conflicts against it and it's allies.

And back on topic...


Rand report predicts increased cost to USMC due to integration of women into infantry units.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/08/opening-marine-infantry-jobs-women-raise-recruiting-cost-rand.html

In part:

Because female Marines have been found to complete infantry training with lower success rates than their male counterparts, and because they are predicted to spend fewer years in infantry units, the integration of women will result in a smaller Marine Corps infantry, the study finds. To maintain the infantry at its current size, the Corps will have to invest more to either bring in new recruits or retain talented Marine grunts. Those costs could total $1.8 million per year, the study concludes.

"Recurring costs could also include additional physical conditioning time as necessary, lost time necessary to recover from increased injury rates, as well as any other alterations to training or continued implementation of policy changes," the researchers wrote.

And even with all combat fields open, data suggests the number of women in Marine infantry jobs will remain small, the report concludes. The Corps would need to recruit 100 female grunts per year to build an infantry that is 2 percent female, assuming optimistically high boot camp and infantry training graduation rates.

Cost to Army will be higher (bigger service/more slots).

Again, understanding the very real differences have very real consequences (in this case some of the fiscal ones are pointed out) and accepting those consequences is fine if that is what you want to do. If you feel the societal benefits outweigh the costs, then this is the right choice to make. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh the cost then this would be the wrong choice. I do still find it silly that some want to deny the differences exist or that if they exist they do incur consequences. That just does not seem to be rational thought to me.

 CptJake wrote:
And back on topic...


Rand report predicts increased cost to USMC due to integration of women into infantry units.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/08/opening-marine-infantry-jobs-women-raise-recruiting-cost-rand.html

In part:

Because female Marines have been found to complete infantry training with lower success rates than their male counterparts, and because they are predicted to spend fewer years in infantry units, the integration of women will result in a smaller Marine Corps infantry, the study finds. To maintain the infantry at its current size, the Corps will have to invest more to either bring in new recruits or retain talented Marine grunts. Those costs could total $1.8 million per year, the study concludes.

"Recurring costs could also include additional physical conditioning time as necessary, lost time necessary to recover from increased injury rates, as well as any other alterations to training or continued implementation of policy changes," the researchers wrote.

And even with all combat fields open, data suggests the number of women in Marine infantry jobs will remain small, the report concludes. The Corps would need to recruit 100 female grunts per year to build an infantry that is 2 percent female, assuming optimistically high boot camp and infantry training graduation rates.

Cost to Army will be higher (bigger service/more slots).

Again, understanding the very real differences have very real consequences (in this case some of the fiscal ones are pointed out) and accepting those consequences is fine if that is what you want to do. If you feel the societal benefits outweigh the costs, then this is the right choice to make. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh the cost then this would be the wrong choice. I do still find it silly that some want to deny the differences exist or that if they exist they do incur consequences. That just does not seem to be rational thought to me.

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Becoming a nuclear power happened in the same war. The fact is the US has both, and that's a good deterrent to people starting conflicts against it and it's allies.

I don't disagree, but the reason the USSR didn't "win" the cold war has nothing to do with conventional military, which is my point. Just a small disagreement.

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Has it been determined that they passed honestly or did they have a lower bar?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Has it been determined that they passed honestly or did they have a lower bar?

I don't know how that went. It's bad enough it costs more than 4x as much to get a woman through Ranger school, let alone any training that comes after.

Relapse wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Has it been determined that they passed honestly or did they have a lower bar?

I don't know how that went. It's bad enough it costs more than 4x as much to get a woman through Ranger school, let alone any training that comes after.

Why does it cost more? Its not really equal opportunity if it costs that much. Tactically, itd be better to have 8-9 people than 2

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Has it been determined that they passed honestly or did they have a lower bar?

Still conflicting stories on it. The one I've heard from sources who I trust is that the did pass honestly in that they did meet the course standards, but that they were basically allowed to recycle forever until they decided to quit or finally made it. Not every male is given that chance (it is VERY rare to be allowed to recycle the same phase multiple times and then do so each phase) The third female graduate definitely recycles a lot more than several males ranger students I know were allowed to. Having said that, she really just extended pain and misery with each recycle, she has to be pretty tough to have kept going as long as she did.

The school is now open for all soldiers who can get a slot. Other females have gotten in, none have made it through yet. They still fail RAP week for the most part.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Isn't this the exact thing those who disagree with women being put into frontline combat positions predicted would happen? Costs would increase to keep as effective a force as an all male one is? Consider also the equipment the Marines will lose out on because their money from a limited budget is being pissed away trying to be equal opportunity.

The other side of that coin is "If they want to be infantry and can pass the training they should be able to".

Using actual cost benefit analysis to show the downside never wins against that argument. ANY cost is worth it, especially when you don't shoulder the burden of the cost.

It's like the Ranger thread. Because of costs and slots being taken in order to be "equal opportunity", instead of 9 male Rangers, we get 2 female Rangers.

Has it been determined that they passed honestly or did they have a lower bar?

I don't know how that went. It's bad enough it costs more than 4x as much to get a woman through Ranger school, let alone any training that comes after.

Why does it cost more? Its not really equal opportunity if it costs that much. Tactically, itd be better to have 8-9 people than 2

Because women washed out of Ranger school at a far higher rate than men, so that at the end of it, more money was spent finding women to go all the way through. The controversy you mentioned reminded me of this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D0yYwBzKAyY

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Why does it cost more? Its not really equal opportunity if it costs that much. Tactically, itd be better to have 8-9 people than 2

It costs more because there are limited slots for the school. If roughly 40% of males make it through (50% is the rate you see most often, but the RTB site says 42% average the last few years), and to date about 15% of females make it through each slot given to a female is less likely to generate a Ranger qualified soldier.

If 20 females gives you 3 Ranger qualified soldiers (15%) and 20 males gives you 8 Ranger qualified soldiers (40% though again, the numbers are probably close to 50%), you can see the difference.

Where this will come into play is when we want to have female leaders in infantry units. The cost gets higher. Almost no IBCT commander allows platoon leader slots to go to non-tabbed LTs. A LT who shows up without a tab will be shoved into a staff position and hope they can get a slot to school. Most infantry LTs go to Ranger school after they finish Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course and before they move on to their unit. At that point Big Army is paying for the slot. If they fail (or fail to go) and report into their unit un-tabbed, they will be competing with a lot of folks for one of the unit funded slots. Units get a lot more value sending a junior NCO who will be a squad leader and someday a platoon sergeant in the unit. Officers are not there as long so there is not as much value wasting a unit slot on one, ESPECIALLY if they have already had an opportunity and failed.

So if we had sent 20 female Infantry branched LTs to Ranger school, and 3 made it, those three go to their units and have a decent slot at getting a platoon leader job (critical for career advancement). The other 17 fill staff slots and will be competing with other soldiers for a chance to return, and frankly getting them slots will not be a priority. If I'm a battalion commander and have 10 slots a year, I can reasonably hope to get 5 tabbed troopers. I have lesser chance of one of the female LTs making it through, AND she will have already failed, wasting a slot in the past. So we end up with female LTs who likely had college paid for (ROTC or Academy), had IOBLC paid for, and Ranger school paid for, that won't get a chance to be platoon leaders and therefore will have short careers as infantry officers. At that point the tax payer will have shelled out quite a bit for each, and each held a slot that meant a person with a much higher chance of success did not get.

We'll see. If the priority is X% must be female, we'll send in enough to get X%.

I am surprised there aren't that many articles about how these women are now doing after Ranger school. I would think they would be a PR gold mine for those on either side of the question, depending on their post graduate success or failure.

I suspect the officers in question, and their unit commanders, very much want them out of the lime light. And I don't blame them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Becoming a nuclear power happened in the same war. The fact is the US has both, and that's a good deterrent to people starting conflicts against it and it's allies.

I don't disagree, but the reason the USSR didn't "win" the cold war has nothing to do with conventional military, which is my point. Just a small disagreement.

I certainly won't disagree with you either. But think of all the conflicts that have arisen where nukes weren't on the table. My point originally was that the conventional forces of the US military have most probably served as a deterrent in many cases irrespective of nuclear solutions. Not all of them, obviously, but how do you quantify conflicts that didn't happen? Anyways, starting to wander off topic a bit here.

Relapse wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.

It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.

My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.

I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.

It's already a requirement. It's simply a requirement that keeps getting "delayed" because the Marines don't want to have over half of all women Marines failing the PFT. They've been hammering away at it for over three years now and still can't get the numbers to move the way they want them to. They have no choice but to drop it.

Things are really going to get nasty when special warfare selection and assessment course standards start coming into play. All the snake eaters basically went, "Yeah, sure," when Carter started pushing for female integration, because as things stand now, women have such a remote chance of making it through stuff like BUD/S that they don't have to worry about it. Eventually, though, someone's going to start rabblerousing.

Relapse- They were never slotted to become infantry officers and went back to whatever positions they held before. They were just doing it for the tab. It was nothing more than an experiment.

Information I heard from my few contacts still in RTB, they were told to be given unlimited recycles and did not ever get peered out. I wasn't informed if they got rid of the peering system entirely or if it was just for the females.

CaptJake- The ranger officer thing, is this a new system? When I was in an infantry battalion a few years back I never had ranger tabbed platoon leaders. All my captains were however.