PDA

View Full Version : Women in Combat?


KRG1987
02-04-2013, 11:32
With our President and Mr. Panetta's decision to allow women to hold a Combat MOS. Do you believe we will be seeing women in SFAS in the near future? I am curious as to your opinions on the matter.

Team Sergeant
02-04-2013, 11:41
Good question.

There's a reason we don't have professional woman's football, basketball, hockey teams and why women don't compete against men in the Olympics. It has nothing to do with intellect but everything to do with strength.

But to answer your question, yes, I'm sure the US military will lower the standards to accommodate women in all combat roles.
TS

KRG1987
02-04-2013, 11:57
Now with SFAS that is a selection process by current SF members if im not mistaken? I can forsee these women making a big stink about not getting selected and blame it on being a woman not because they just cant do the job required. I would not want to be in the shit and the woman have the realization this is not for her. I understand the need for political correctness and equality but maybe instead of a complete change of rules a test group or 2 in a limited role?? It just seems rushed.

KRG1987
02-04-2013, 12:37
Well thats good to hear. Thanks for the info

MR2
02-04-2013, 12:40
I understand the need for political correctness...

I don't. Please explain. :munchin

1stindoor
02-04-2013, 12:52
Here's a question from me...just out of curiousity...are you now or have you been in the military?

KRG1987
02-04-2013, 13:02
Feb 11 I sign 11x opt 4 contract. I do not have any previous service and I look forward to serving my country Sir

1stindoor
02-04-2013, 13:10
Not trying to be a dick...well not a total one anyhows...but I wouldn't want to be "in the shit," when you come to that same realization. I'll give you the same advice I gave my son when he enlisted...take it one day at a time and see if you even have the capacity to serve in the military.

KRG1987
02-04-2013, 13:28
I thank you very much for your advice Sir. It was very similar advice given to me by my father. Focus on the 25m target get your bearings and make sure it is what you want to do. In re reading my comment I did not have the intention to come across that I know anything of "being in the shit" just a bad use of wordage it was just an opinion on my behalf.

1stindoor
02-05-2013, 07:20
No harm no foul...good luck to you next week.

Dusty
02-05-2013, 08:09
none of them would even begin to even ponder entering an MOS where they can't meet the current standard.

Do you think the standards will be changed in order to facilitate entry for those women (and there must be some) who would ponder entering an MOS whose standards they can't meet, as they stand, at present?

koz
02-05-2013, 08:26
No woman I know in the military would be making that stink. Just how many military women do you know? All the ones I know concentrate on being the best they can be at their given profession, and none of them would even begin to even ponder entering an MOS where they can't meet the current standard. I am tired of men like you, lumping all women into the same category. A vast majority of us know our limitations, and accept them.

Now politicians, that is a different story, but they are the reason for all this crap in the first place, so it will be no surprise when any of them begin to open their mouths on the subject.

Kate Wilder..... No stink at all.....

Dusty
02-05-2013, 08:26
But there are going to be those that can meet the standard for infantry/mech/artillery units. So instead of bitching, moaning, whining and complaining about it, it is high time we all start to figure out a plan to best integrate those women into those MOS's , because gentlemen, the time is here, and nothing you say about it, is going to change it. As leaders, the best thing we can do for our troops is not complain behind the brass' back, but move out, and effect the change in the best way possible.



Concur. As I've stated before, Ma'am, as long as the current standards aren't modified, there should be no reason to exclude a female from entering a combat MOS.

I don't agree with the chauvinistic misogynists who compare it to a man trying out for the Bearded Lady gig at Barnum and Bailey. :D

sinjefe
02-05-2013, 08:27
. As leaders, the best thing we can do for our troops is not complain behind the brass' back, but move out, and effect the change in the best way possible.

Or get out/retire. but, I agree, staying in and bitching about isn't the right course of action.

sinjefe
02-05-2013, 08:40
Are you really willing to get out/retire over this? Don't you think that in order for this change to be made, there needs to be men like yourself that are willing to stay in and make the change happen in the best manner possible? Instead of leaving it to some FNG who doesn't know his/her ass from a hole in the ground.

Combat veterans are the best mentors for any new person into a unit. Women are going to need those mentors just as much as the men. If everyone leaves in mass protest, how is that good for the DoD? A decision has been made, it is up to us to make it happen.

Actaullay, I retired 5 years ago.;) I used to tell myself the kind of stuff you just said. But, I have become cynical and I don't think "change from within" ever happens. The forces of evil are too strong. You have to live by your principals.

sinjefe
02-05-2013, 08:43
I now subscribe to the "Dusty effect'. Hunkering down in my bunker and waiting for the apocolypse.:D

Richard
02-05-2013, 08:48
You have to live by your principals.

Not me - I was wild as a dry August wind and always wanted to live as far away from my 'principals' as possible. :D :D

Richard :munchin

Dusty
02-05-2013, 08:51
I now subscribe to the "Dusty effect'. Hunkering down in my bunker and waiting for the apocolypse.:D

"Imitation is the sincerest forum of flattery." :D

Old Dog New Trick
02-05-2013, 09:05
There will not be equality and a sexless military until everyone is treated the same and comfortable with co-Ed everything.

As long as we have "Men" and "Women" seperate latrines and shower facilities and a different physical fitness standard to define "qualified" there will be issues with men and women serving in specific roles together.

There is no reason not to expect that many will suffer and some will die, so that a few can achieve some fantasy about what equality is and is not.

There may be roles for women in combat units and those should be defined with tests and qualifications that differ from their male counterparts but do not disrupt the natural order of things.

JMO

ETA: We have and have had women in SF (support roles) for years, they perform their duties with great enthusiasm and professionalism. Some would even be an asset in the field but those roles are limited and very specific.

mark46th
02-05-2013, 09:32
My sister in law was the Athletic Director at a school here in California when Title IX passed, dictating that both men's and women's athletic teams had to have equal facilities, funding, etc.

I asked her if this meant women could try out for men's teams, she said yes.

I asked her if I could try out for her women's softball team, she said no and couldn't tell me (or admit) why...

There are no women playing in the NFL, the NBA, MLB or NHL for a reason...

1stindoor
02-05-2013, 12:05
Which also begs the question...why do our fearless leaders need all female FETs and CSTs? Why can't a male join those two units? Is my testosterone level too high? I think men should be allowed the option of going out for the CSTs and FETs.

mark46th
02-05-2013, 13:06
Since when did equality, cultural sensitivity and gender have anything to do with logic?

Razor
02-05-2013, 15:33
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but weren't those teams put together because of cultural sensitivity in the AOR?

That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

The Reaper
02-05-2013, 18:45
I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, there was a combat load study of a "light infantry" unit in the box, and their measured loads ranged between 125 and 145 pounds per man, at significant altitude, for days on end. Any women I know who could physically lift that load (less strength, especially upper body), could not sustain it for as long as the men (lower aerobic capacity), and would suffer permanent damage to their bodies (lower bone density).

TR

scooter
02-05-2013, 18:47
That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

I can imagine VERY few places in the 5th Group AOR that would react well to a female Detachment Commander showing up to meet with a counterpart military commander.

BKKMAN
02-05-2013, 19:04
I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, there was a combat load study of a "light infantry" unit in the box, and their measured loads ranged between 125 and 145 pounds per man, at significant altitude, for days on end. Any women I know who could physically lift that load (less strength, especially upper body), could not sustain it for as long as the men (lower aerobic capacity), and would suffer permanent damage to their bodies (lower bone density).

TR

These?

MtnGoat
02-06-2013, 05:58
I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.TR

Well I'll say, even if USASFC brings back the SF yearly certification, this wouldn't help Groups or the Regiment in a cause. The standards will be changed and arms/hands tied.

1stindoor
02-06-2013, 08:26
That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

Thanks for the assist...and it was my point exactly. Growing up in 7th SFG was another prime example of why women on teams wouldn't being accepted.

Snaquebite
02-06-2013, 15:45
Couldn't resist

24222

Dusty
02-06-2013, 17:29
Couldn't resist

24222

lol Made my day. :D:D

Chairborne64
02-06-2013, 19:12
I agree with The Reaper. The standards won't be lowered, until they see that the number of women who meet the current standards are incredibly few. Then of course they will be lowered, don't fool yourself. It will get a lot of good people killed. Take a look at the average size of a light infantryman today. 6 foot tall and 170lbs. That is a good sized linebacker on a HS football team. There is a reason for that. The combat load has steadily increased. It takes somebody that size to carry that for an extended duration and not break down.:mad:

Chairborne64
02-06-2013, 19:13
BTW awesome cartoon!:p

Razor
02-06-2013, 21:34
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-panetta-says-women-in-combat-a-strength-012413

"Panetta said women will be held to the same standard as men, and those standards will not be deliberately lowered to allow more women to serve in combat units or jobs. “Let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job,” Panetta said"

I thought he made it quite clear when he made his announcement on the 24th of Jan that the standards would not be lowered.

Panetta is the outgoing SECDEF that will not have to implement this decision. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who isn't going anywhere for another year or so, said this:

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? (Emphasis mine)With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Chairborne64
02-07-2013, 19:41
Just in case you had any doubt that the standards will soon be lowered. Here is a quote from todays Washington Times article:
At a news conference last month, Gen. Dempsey said: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary: Why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

He also said the goal is to have a significant number of women, not just a few, qualify as land combatants.

Gen. Dempsey said job performance for men and women will be assessed by the same standards. This means that, if a certain standard is to be lowered, it will be reduced for men and for women.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/6/keep-combat-standards-high-military-urged/#ixzz2KGeFUs00
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So soon we will not only have a vast influx of women that could not meet the original standards but a bunch of men also. I truly feel sorry for the infantry squad leaders of today.:mad:

ACampCmdrLegacy
02-08-2013, 15:33
This thread has absolutely zero to do with Special Forces.

It should be deleted Post Haste.

Pete
02-08-2013, 15:49
This thread has absolutely zero to do with Special Forces.

It should be deleted Post Haste.


Bold Talk for somebody not following the board rules.

I checked your join date and all three posts.

Square yourself away by the time I get back from supper - or else.

Pete

Old Dog New Trick
02-08-2013, 23:26
Darn it. Wrong quote. That's what I get posting from my phone in the middle of Charlie Mikes.

THIS Quote by Vernice Armour

Honestly, I am offended by how many times I hear "women in combat" and "lowering standards" used in the same sentence. True, the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Standards should not be lowered and women don't want them to be. No one should be in a job where he or she doesn't meet the standards -- not every man, for example is fit to be a Navy SEAL.

Ya' so what's your opinion?

It's not just about physical strength and standards...it's about a whole lot more.

It's complicated!

Razor
02-08-2013, 23:44
To which posts are you referring? I see two posts by you prior to Old Dog New Trick's post.

Oh, and lighten up, Francis...there are plenty of women here that post pretty frequently. Life wisdom says those that go out looking for a fight tend to find one.

Chairborne64
02-09-2013, 08:48
MISO MED,

The fact that women are serving in combat roles is not the issue here. The issue is that the CJCS has already STATED that the standards will be lowered to allow women into roles that they would not qualify for (that quote was posted further up in the stream) That concerns us that have spent our entire careers in the combat arms because we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt the issues caused by men who cannot handle the physicality of the job. Now we are going to make the problem even worse by adding more men and women who cannot handle the job.

Thankfully at least the senior leadership at SOCOM has resisted the idea of lowering standards. It also looks like the Commadant of the USMC is doing the same thing.

tom kelly
02-09-2013, 15:08
In Combat, Who sets the Standards? Do they factor in Gender? TK

MR2
02-09-2013, 15:19
In Combat, Who sets the Standards? Do they factor in Gender? TK

The winners.

Joker
02-09-2013, 21:06
...Relaxing standards is simply NOT an option. There is NO place for Affirmative Action on the battlefield. (Forgive my lack of manners. I didn't give any info to whom was posting - CA soldier at Bragg.)

MM, Most of the PS's here do read the profiles (especially the non-PS members) and we do realize where you are coming from. First I really do appreciate your service to you nation and your team.

This is not an attack on you; it is an attack on those that are attempting to “change the military for the better.” BS! Have any of the female proponents or Generals in charge of the military today served in the Infantry or a true Combat Arms unit or even experienced anything remotely similar? GoRuck events do not count nor do hikes in the woods nor does “combat” paintballing. I mean true EXTENDED tactical overland foot-movements and living extremely tight with your team mates. If so, they are not acting like it. They are making decisions that are putting service members lives in peril, including women.

Do you know what a hide site is? It is a hole in the ground where you live until the mission is over. I was part of a 15-man team (5 USSF, 10 PN) where two of us (2 USSF) lived in that hide site for 21-days the others stayed in the MSS. That was after we infiled over-land using our feet through the jungle and swamps for more than 25 kilometers carrying more than 80 lbs. in two days. You don’t leave the hide site or the mission is compromised. We were in the field for more than 5-weeks including infil, site recon, site preparation, observing, site sterilization, regress, and exfil. Are you willing to live with a man not your husband in roughly a 5-foot-wide x 8-foot-long x 4-foot-high hole 24-hours a day for days on end? Are you willing to poop and piss in a baggy in front of your hide site buddy, NOT ONCE but EVERY TIME for as long as the mission takes? Are you going to control your menstrual cycle so as not to attract wildlife (we were in a Western Hemisphere jungle and there are animals there that will stalk you, kill you, and eat you)?

We need the rear element support and we cannot do our jobs without it. There is no shame of being a cook, mechanic, clerk, medic, or even a lawyer:p. I thank God for the medics that keep us alive and the doctors that put us back together after serious crap happens. MM, I thank you for that.:lifter

DOL

Chairborne64
02-09-2013, 21:15
Joker,

Amen Brother! Very well said.:lifter

Old Dog New Trick
02-09-2013, 23:17
Joker, well put. I too spent time on an SR team and I don't believe our civilian overlords can even comprehend what that means, what it takes to get to where it needs to be, and then what the cost of compromise means to the overall mission and the team.

Aside from that and for the discussion, I spent my first eight years in the Infantry. The task is hard enough with the men in the unit. I could not even imagine females fighting alongside those men, and when they are not fighting the enemy they are fighting amongst themselves to see who is the alpha male. Eventually the alpha male will decide to conquer all members of the platoon and if that is a female soldier she will be raped, not an if but how many times!

You can't regulate human behavior!

Joker
02-09-2013, 23:51
According to the Army female height and weight standards a 5'4" woman 21-27 y.o. cannot weigh more than 147 lbs. How can a 147 lb. carry 85-125 lbs of equipment over rough terrain for several days? On top of that slide down a fastrope with that gear and have a CONTROLLED stop! Hell, I haven't seen a 147 lb SF troop in a long time.

DOL

18ZULU
02-10-2013, 00:47
When I went through Tng Gp (70-71) we were taught that A teams could be augmented by anyone we needed for an operation. For example, when my team went to St Vincent following the Grenada invasion, under Reagan, we took a leg E7 motor sergeant with us to train them on the vehicles we were providing them. He fit right in with the team, in fact we gave him a beret to wear to blend in. Another team had an E6 that did NOT fit in and gave them nothing but trouble. Conceiveably female personnel could be attached as needed. But we would not expect them to perform up to our standards.

This brings up the second point. The soldier's load. I don't understand why our troops are carrying the loads they are! We are not fighting in a jungle like we did in Vietnam where there was a chance we could hide from the enemy. (Actually the VC/NVA generally knew where our units were through their intel nets) While you can hide a small SF Recon (where I served) or LRRP team there is no way to hide a rifle company even in the jungle. We are currently fighting in the desert where visability is miles rather than meters. Helicopters can resupply almost daily. Why does a infantry unit carry a weeks worth on their backs? Your not hiding from anyone! It seems we are loading more and more weight on our soldier's backs for no real reason. Our soldiers are as tough as any and can live with a minimum of equipment and supplies. SF carries everything on their backs because we are behind enemy ljnes and do not expect resupply. But then our main mission is not hand to hand combat like the infantry!

This leads to my last point. Infantry is not just jumping out of an ambushed vehicle(s) with your rifle and web gear and fighting off an ambushing force then getting back in your truck and driving on. Infantry is WEEKS of foot slogging (even for the mech infantry) fighting an enemy just as tough and determined as you. Many men can't do this. I doubt one woman in a thousand can stand it. And you are right, they will lower the standards. Our infantry units will suffer as a result. Also who will carry the base plate in a mortar platoon? Just men? Who will carry the heavy anti-tank weapons/ammo? The extra mortar rounds? Just men? Thats not FAIR!!!!

PS: I actually met Katie Wilder on an exercise. She was an MI officer that briefed my team in isolation for a training mission. She did not do very well, BUT she had spent her entire career as a Protocol Officer before this assignment and had almost no experience as an MI officer. The story we got is that her daddy was a retired colonel and since there was nothing saying a woman couldn't go to the SFOC (SF Officer's Course) she got in. She was eliminated for cheating on the compass course. So were a number of men. The rub was that they reinstated the men but not her. So she got back in and finished the course. (SFOC was considered a fluff course by us enlisted that went through the "Q" course before they redid SF training in the mid to late 80s. As the 7th SFG(A) Training NCO I had some input on this).

Old Dog New Trick
02-10-2013, 01:01
According to the Army female height and weight standards a 5'4" woman 21-27 y.o. cannot weigh more than 147 lbs. How can a 147 lb. carry 85-125 lbs of equipment over rough terrain for several days? On top of that slide down a fastrope with that gear and have a CONTROLLED stop! Hell, I haven't seen a 147 lb SF troop in a long time.

DOL

But just think of the positives...we could roll her out the jump door with all the batteries and she might still be under the max weight of a MC-1C parachute. :D

MR2
02-10-2013, 05:36
But just think of the positives...we could roll her out the jump door with all the batteries and she might still be under the max weight of a MC-1C parachute. :D

There you go! Always thinking. :lifter

koz
02-10-2013, 07:13
This brings up the second point. The soldier's load. I don't understand why our troops are carrying the loads they are! We are not fighting in a jungle like we did in Vietnam where there was a chance we could hide from the enemy. (Actually the VC/NVA generally knew where our units were through their intel nets) While you can hide a small SF Recon (where I served) or LRRP team there is no way to hide a rifle company even in the jungle. We are currently fighting in the desert where visability is miles rather than meters. Helicopters can resupply almost daily. Why does a infantry unit carry a weeks worth on their backs? Your not hiding from anyone! It seems we are loading more and more weight on our soldier's backs for no real reason. Our soldiers are as tough as any and can live with a minimum of equipment and supplies. SF carries everything on their backs because we are behind enemy ljnes and do not expect resupply. But then our main mission is not hand to hand combat like the infantry!


Yes - we are doing some hiding where you won't be supplied for weeks. Also in the high mountain desert, W/x is often a problem for helicopter resupply.

And we're carrying more than "rations" - Radios, designators, BATTERIES, ammo, etc.. makes the weight add up quickly.

The Reaper
02-10-2013, 10:15
When I went through Tng Gp (70-71) we were taught that A teams could be augmented by anyone we needed for an operation. For example, when my team went to St Vincent following the Grenada invasion, under Reagan, we took a leg E7 motor sergeant with us to train them on the vehicles we were providing them. He fit right in with the team, in fact we gave him a beret to wear to blend in. Another team had an E6 that did NOT fit in and gave them nothing but trouble. Conceiveably female personnel could be attached as needed. But we would not expect them to perform up to our standards.

This brings up the second point. The soldier's load. I don't understand why our troops are carrying the loads they are! We are not fighting in a jungle like we did in Vietnam where there was a chance we could hide from the enemy. (Actually the VC/NVA generally knew where our units were through their intel nets) While you can hide a small SF Recon (where I served) or LRRP team there is no way to hide a rifle company even in the jungle. We are currently fighting in the desert where visability is miles rather than meters. Helicopters can resupply almost daily. Why does a infantry unit carry a weeks worth on their backs? Your not hiding from anyone! It seems we are loading more and more weight on our soldier's backs for no real reason. Our soldiers are as tough as any and can live with a minimum of equipment and supplies. SF carries everything on their backs because we are behind enemy ljnes and do not expect resupply. But then our main mission is not hand to hand combat like the infantry!

This leads to my last point. Infantry is not just jumping out of an ambushed vehicle(s) with your rifle and web gear and fighting off an ambushing force then getting back in your truck and driving on. Infantry is WEEKS of foot slogging (even for the mech infantry) fighting an enemy just as tough and determined as you. Many men can't do this. I doubt one woman in a thousand can stand it. And you are right, they will lower the standards. Our infantry units will suffer as a result. Also who will carry the base plate in a mortar platoon? Just men? Who will carry the heavy anti-tank weapons/ammo? The extra mortar rounds? Just men? Thats not FAIR!!!!

PS: I actually met Katie Wilder on an exercise. She was an MI officer that briefed my team in isolation for a training mission. She did not do very well, BUT she had spent her entire career as a Protocol Officer before this assignment and had almost no experience as an MI officer. The story we got is that her daddy was a retired colonel and since there was nothing saying a woman couldn't go to the SFOC (SF Officer's Course) she got in. She was eliminated for cheating on the compass course. So were a number of men. The rub was that they reinstated the men but not her. So she got back in and finished the course. (SFOC was considered a fluff course by us enlisted that went through the "Q" course before they redid SF training in the mid to late 80s. As the 7th SFG(A) Training NCO I had some input on this).


As referenced earlier.

This is a basic Rifleman's loadout from a study of a battalion in the 82nd.

This is all mission essential gear, IMHO. If the infantryman can't hump this load himself, someone else will have to.

I don't see a lot of fluff here. Very few, if any comfort or entertainment items.

This assumes a daily resupply of water, MREs, and ammo. Frankly, for a combat load, seven mags of 5.56 and one frag seems a little light to me.

Note that these are actual measured weights, from some very fit infantrymen from the 82nd, not some educated guess at what the guys were humping.

Equipment Common to Riflemen:

A. Worn on Body/Uniform:

• M4 Carbine with PEQ-2 Laser/PAQ-4 Laser, ACOG/CCO, and 30 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition.
• Desert Camouflage Uniform with Infrared Tape on left sleeve (1”x1”).
• Desert Combat Boots.
• Dog Tags.
• ID Card.
• Undershirt.
• Socks.
• Tactical gloves.
• Interceptor Body Armor with two Small Arms Protective Inserts.
• Advanced Combat Helmet with night vision mounting plate.
• Rigger belt.
• Notebook and pen.
• Watch.
• Knee and elbow pads.
• Sun, Sand, and Dust type Goggles or Wiley-X Goggles.
• Folding Knife/Multi-tool.

B. Worn on Fighting Load Carrier/Interceptor Body Armor:

• MOLLE Fighting Load Carrier with modular MOLLE pouches.
• 180 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition.
• Bayonet.
• Fragmentation grenade.
• 64 ounces of water in two 1-quart canteens.
• 100 ounces of water in a hydration bladder.
• Casualty and witness cards.
• Flex cuffs for personnel under custody.
• Night vision equipment (PVS-14/PVS-7).
• Iodine tablets.
• Lensatic compass.
• Flashlight.
• Chemlight.
• First Aid dressing and pouch.
• Canteen Cup.
• Earplugs.

C. Carried in Assault Rucksack:

• MOLLE Assault Rucksack or commercial assault rucksack, with MOLLE attachments.
• 500ml intravenous fluids bag with starter kit.
• 70 ounces of water in a second hydration bladder.
• Two Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs).
• Poncho and/or Bivy Sack.
• Poncho liner.
• Undershirt.
• Spare batteries.
• Two pair of socks.
• Polypropylene or silk long sleeve undershirt.
• M4/M16 Rifle Cleaning Kit.
• Personal hygiene kit.
• Rubber gloves.
• Sling rope with two snap links.

D. Carried in Main Rucksack: (Main rucksacks were rarely taken on operations during study)

• MOLLE main rucksack with Sleeping Bag Carrier or Large ALICE rucksack.
• Modular Sleeping Bag (one bag per two men).
• Long Polypropylene Underwear of Fleece Jacket and Bibs.
• Two Undershirts.
• Two pairs of socks.
• Cold Weather Gloves.
• Knit/Fleece Cap.
• Additional ammunition.
• Two Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs).
• Sleeping pad.

Special Equipment:
• Lock pick (B).
• Collapsible Riot Baton (B).
• Bolt cutters (C or D).
• Metal detecting wand (C or D).
• 60mm mortar round (C or D).
• Combat Lifesaver Kit (C).
• Personnel Under Custody (PUC) Kit (sand bags, flex cuffs, trash bags, PUC cards, rubber gloves) (C).
• AT4 Anti-armor Weapon. (C or D).
• SMAW-D Bunker Defeat Weapon. (C or D).
• Hooligan Tool. (C or D).
• Sledgehammer. (C or D).
• Entrenching Tool. (C or D).
• M18 Claymore Mine. (C or D).
• Pole-less Litter. (C or D).
• 200 rounds of 5.56mm linked ammunition for M249 SAW. (C or D).

Fighting Load = A+B
Approach March Load = A+B+C
Emergency Approach March Load = A+B+C+D

Average Mission Duration: 48-72 hours

Resupply Items: Soldiers were resupplied with 2-3 MREs per day and up to 8 liters of water per day. When under fire, Soldiers could expect a resupply of their basic load of ammunition each day.

Duty Position: Rifleman

Average Fighting Load (lbs): 63.00 lbs

Average FL % Body Weight: 35.90%

Average Approach March Load (lbs): 95.67 lbs

Average AML % Body Weight: 54.72%

Average Emergency Approach March Load (lbs): 127.34 lbs

Average EAML % Body Weight: 71.41%

The environmental conditions were laid out earlier in this thread, but essentially, it is medium to high altitude desert in Afghanistan in the winter.

The basic rifleman is one of the lightest of the loads studied. Machine gunners and mortarmen carried significantly more weight.

I don't see too many women carrying this load for a week or more at the time, six to twelve months per rotation.

I would challenge anyone thinking about putting women under this load to actually don a ruck and gear totalling 127 pounds and try to walk 12 miles. I think that would illustrate the diffuivculty an infantryman faces better than any number of position papers.

TR

Joker
02-10-2013, 10:31
...I would challenge anyone thinking about putting women under this load to actually don a ruck and gear totalling 127 pounds and try to walk 12 miles. I think that would illustrate the diffuivculty an infantryman faces better than any number of position papers.

TR

:lifter :lifterWHAT HE SAID!!!

Ambush Master
02-10-2013, 10:46
When I came out of the "Q", I was 155-160 lbs. Keep in mind that this was WAY before K-pocs, NVGs, Body Armor, etc!! Granted we were just beyond Bows & Arrows/Flintlocks, but my basic "On the Skid/Ladder/Rappel" Load was close to 200 lbs!! Of course, we did not plan on any resupply other than a "Drop Bag" when we really got into some fun times!! I can't imagine a Female carrying more than her own weight on flat ground much less in either High Plains Desert, or Jungle, Mountainous Terrain!!

MR2
02-10-2013, 11:12
and we complained about the steel pot...

Ambush Master
02-10-2013, 11:21
and we complained about the steel pot...

We NEVER wore them, in fact, I do not even remember having one during my whole tour!! All that I ever ran with was an OD Cravat.

Blitzzz (RIP)
02-10-2013, 11:44
Mediocrity is the new "high standard'

Dusty
02-11-2013, 16:30
We NEVER wore them, in fact, I do not even remember having one during my whole tour!! All that I ever ran with was an OD Cravat.

You guys were it, Bro. :cool:

I carried a 60 for a couple years in a Recon unit, and 600 rounds for it, usually-my ruck never weighed much more than a hundred, probably. I can't imagine running with 200 pounds in that heat.

Utah Bob
02-13-2013, 12:50
and we complained about the steel pot...

And now I collect em. Go figure.:D

longrange1947
02-13-2013, 19:50
18ZULU - PS: I actually met Katie Wilder on an exercise. She was an MI officer that briefed my team in isolation for a training mission. She did not do very well, BUT she had spent her entire career as a Protocol Officer before this assignment and had almost no experience as an MI officer. The story we got is that her daddy was a retired colonel and since there was nothing saying a woman couldn't go to the SFOC (SF Officer's Course) she got in. She was eliminated for cheating on the compass course. So were a number of men. The rub was that they reinstated the men but not her. So she got back in and finished the course. (SFOC was considered a fluff course by us enlisted that went through the "Q" course before they redid SF training in the mid to late 80s. As the 7th SFG(A) Training NCO I had some input on this).

Which exercise would that have been? Curious as I tried to get her captured during an exercise in which I was Controller/G-Chief/Grader. This particular exercise is also where I am accused of being the cause of 10th moving from Flint Kaserne, even though it took place years before the move. :munchin :D


STEEL POT!!! Only on jumps. :)

Chairborne64
02-14-2013, 08:26
Quote from Dollarbill:

"As long as all quailifications are met, I'd give it a whirl. One thing would have to be made clear up front. If I have to deal with any pre or post syndrome (cause God knows females have a boat load) all bets would be off. They'd have to be willing to move on. After all, a unit is just that."

That would be the issue. Standards WILL NOT be met. It has already been stated that they will be lowered to accomadate women. Secondly, not sure what you mean by post syndrome? However, good luck trying to remove somebody from a unit in today's environment.

I do not often agree with the current SGM of the Army. One of the few things we do agree on is that obeisity and out of shape soldiers is a critical issue today. Now we are going to make this issue WORSE by lowering physical standards in the combat arms.

spottedmedic111
02-15-2013, 18:56
I think our track record shows that this is going to happen eventually, and that voter demographics, not reason, will be the driving force. Having recently redeployed, my opinion of the CST program is that it isn't what was hoped for, but is instead what most of us expected. But as with the CST program, mounds of troubling evidence will not be shared or discussed, and the resulting capability will be the new high standard.

Joker
02-16-2013, 18:49
Joker,...- I wonder if some of the push to gain combat status for females has to do with what happens after war? When a female veteran tries to obtain benefits from the VA, sometimes she's relegated to the back of the line for her non-combat status even if she received her wounds in combat. If her paperwork isn't coded as such, she isn't getting care and falls behind her brothers in the long line of the wounded. A friend of mine has a purple heart and she can't get timely care but of course, who does?

...Your experiences may be really different. What are you running into?

MM,
I personally do not believe anyone that has wounds due to combat should be relegated to the back of the line regardless of sex.:( True combat wounds can take place anywhere – in a village, FOB, or on the way to the Embassy.

I am now a sr. civilian at Star Fleet Command and we see no true combat nor have I heard of one female saying that they wanted to go Infantry, Ranger, or SF. The only ones that I have heard this from is the male(?) Pentagon Leadership, who are even farther removed from the action and are not Combat Arms, and a few congress women (note the little “c,” you figure it out):p, who never have, or will, see some military combat.

Joker

The Reaper
03-11-2013, 16:32
Excellent read.

TR

Seven Myths about “Women in Combat
G.S. Newbold
Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret)

• Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.” No, it’s not. Women are already in combat and are serving with unsurprising professionalism. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry. And this is a decidedly different proposition.

• Myth #2 – “Combat has changed.” Wrong, for several reasons. First, any competent student of military history will cite numerous historical examples about how generations over millennia believed that warfare had changed forever, only to find that technology may change platforms, but not its harsh essence. To hope that the future of warfare will be antiseptic, or mirror Hollywood fantasies, is delusional and dangerous. A second point about the “combat has changed” myth is that the enemy gets a vote. For example, war on the Korean Peninsula, as might occur in numerous other places, would be a brutal, costly, no-holds-barred nightmare of mayhem in close combat. The final point on this myth reinforces the Korea example and it bears examination -- Fallujah, Iraq in 2004, where warfare was reduced to a horrific, costly, and exhausting scrap in a destroyed city between two foes who fought to the death. The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. Realistic benchmarks – not convenient ones – have to be our metric. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one.

• Myth #3 – “If they pass the physical standards, why not?” Physical standards are important, but not nearly all of the story. The grit and horror of direct ground combat reduces humanity to its most base state, and those who can accommodate it survive; those who can’t are victims who only serve to let down their comrades. Napoleon – “The moral (spirit) is to the physical as three is to one.” Unit cohesion is the essence of combat power, and while it may be convenient to dismiss human nature for political expediency, we have had little to no success in this regard. Brutal facts of sexual harassment in the military, civilian workplace, and academia are evidence enough.

• Myth #4 – “Standards won’t be lowered.” This is the cruelest myth of all. There are already accommodations (note that unit cohesion won’t be a metric), there will be many more, and we will pay a bloody price for it someday. Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.

• Myth #5 – “Opening the infantry will provide a better pathway to senior rank for the talented women.” Not so. What will happen is that we will take very dedicated and talented females with unlimited potential and change their peer norm when we inject them into the infantry. Those who might meet the infantry physical standard will find that their peers are expected, as leaders, to far exceed it (and most of their subordinates will, as well). So instead of advancing to a level appropriate to their potential, they may well be left out.

• Myth #6 – “It’s a civil rights issue, much like the integration of the Armed Forces and allowing gays to serve openly.” Those who parrot this either hope to scare honest and frank discussion, or confuse national security with utopian ideas. In the process, they demean initiatives that were to provide equally skilled individuals the opportunity to contribute equally. In each of the other issues, accommodation and lowered standards was not the consequence.

• Myth #7 – “It’s just fair.” Allow me two points. First, this is ground warfare we’re discussing, so realism is important. Direct ground combat, such as practiced in the wheat fields of France, the rubble of Stalingrad, or the endless thirty day jungle patrols against a grim foe in Viet Nam, is the harshest meritocracy, with the greatest consequences, there is. And it’s a team sport, where the failings of one can have grave consequences for all. Psychology in warfare is germane – the force that is respected (and, yes, feared) has a distinct advantage. Will women in our infantry enhance a psychological advantage, or hinder it? Second, if it’s about fairness, why do women get a choice of whether to serve in the infantry (when men do not), and why aren’t they required to register for the draft (as men are)?
It may be that we live in a society in which honest discussion of this issue, relying on facts instead of volume, is not possible. If so, our national security will fall victim to hope instead of reality. And myths be damned.

The Reaper
03-11-2013, 22:13
TR- was your source the Second Line of Defense Forum (http://www.sldforum.com/2013/03/seven-myths-about-“women-in-combat”/)?

I always like to look at the original web source for reader comments, but there don't seem to be any responses yet...

Negative. I got it in an email.

TR

Chairborne64
03-15-2013, 10:48
Here is an article that brings out several very good points. I came across this link on Weapon's Man Blog.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/congress-goes-awol_706674.html?nopager=1

Richard
03-15-2013, 11:52
Well...

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Chairborne64
03-19-2013, 09:07
Okay, that makes sense. I was wondering about that first post it seemed "disconnected.";)

Chairborne64
03-31-2013, 19:01
I see the next two women failed to pass the USMC Infantry Officer Course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301717/Female-marines-fail-complete-grueling-officer-training-course.html

Interesting how only the UK news is reporting this.

The Reaper
03-31-2013, 20:11
I see the next two women failed to pass the USMC Infantry Officer Course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301717/Female-marines-fail-complete-grueling-officer-training-course.html

Interesting how only the UK news is reporting this.

It won't be long before they are told to either build a female only course, or be told to lower the standards for them.

They will not accept that the genders are physically different.

TR

Chairborne64
04-01-2013, 09:34
Reaper,

I concur. This is not working out like they expected. Here is another take on this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/marine-infantry-officer-course-both-women-unceremoniously-dumped-on-first-day

As they state the male drop out rate from this course is about 20% The female rate is 100%.

longrange1947
04-01-2013, 11:11
Reaper, they have already discussed gender "norming" in which if a man exerts 80% of his strength to lift 100 pounds and a women exerts 80% at 60 pounds then they are "normed" and thus equal. Of course the reality of a 100 pound ruck will smack someone in the reality face sooner not later.

Chairborne64
04-03-2013, 13:29
According to this article the Commadant of the USMC and the other service chiefs have now decided on a 3 year "study" period before they make their recommendation about women in the infantry and Special Operations. Sounds like they are starting to get cold feet now that there is a new SECDEF.:munchin

http://freebeacon.com/female-marines-fail-infantry-officer-course/

Joker
04-09-2013, 02:29
MM, do not confuse the issue of political ineptness and ignorance with the issue of our sisters in combat, two entirely different points.

Chairborne64
04-09-2013, 07:51
The bottom line is that at this rate there will never be a significant number of women that can meet the standards to be in the Infantry without the standards being significantly lowered.

Dusty
04-09-2013, 08:25
The liberaces will more than likely lower the standards, which is unfair to the women who have the kind of kickass attitude to want to be an Infantry Officer.

They lose, either way, and it's a shame. I have enormous admiration and respect for the sand in a woman who wants a ground combat leadership position, aberrant though it is.

MR2
04-09-2013, 11:21
The liberaces will more than likely lower the standards, which is unfair to the women who have the kind of kickass attitude to want to be an Infantry Officer.

They lose, either way, and it's a shame. I have enormous admiration and respect for the sand in a woman who wants a ground combat leadership position, aberrant though it is.

Liberace's? Wow Dusty, don't pull punches much do ya! :D

I don't know about admire, but certainly respect!

Team Sergeant
04-09-2013, 11:58
The only place that "women" in combat has been successfully integrated is hollywood and video games. Seems all the "new" movies and video games have women playing the part of battle hardened killers.

I've got an idea, let's take a company of women infantry and make them face a company of male infantry, hand to hand no weapons. Yeah, that's how we fight sometimes, hand to hand. Some would call that unfair, I'd just call it "war".
That should settle the issue.

longrange1947
04-09-2013, 14:32
TS, lets start with a 15 mile ruck march with 100 pound rucks first though.

Then they have to load the rucks into the back of a truck before the fight. :munchin

nousdefions
04-09-2013, 15:54
The only place that "women" in combat has been successfully integrated is hollywood and video games. Seems all the "new" movies and video games have women playing the part of battle hardened killers.

I've got an idea, let's take a company of women infantry and make them face a company of male infantry, hand to hand no weapons. Yeah, that's how we fight sometimes, hand to hand. Some would call that unfair, I'd just call it "war".
That should settle the issue.

"Life isn't fair, neither is war."

nousdefions
04-09-2013, 15:57
TS, lets start with a 15 mile ruck march with 100 pound rucks first though. :munchin

Including the purse? :munchin

MR2
04-09-2013, 18:49
I've taken a fashion to Tom Kratman's fiction. I'm reading The Amazon Legion which is part of a series. This book could stand alone and is about raising, training, deploying up to a battalion of female troops in an alternate Earth SciFi genre. Kratman, a retired Mech LTC and now lawyer, uses this alternative Earth setting to illustrate his points and opinions on the conduct of war, GWOT, Islamism, and integration of women and GBLT into the armed services.

I dare say his books will strike a similar cord with this August body. :munchin

sinjefe
04-09-2013, 18:58
an alternate Earth SciFi genre.

The only place where they can really compete.

longrange1947
04-10-2013, 09:56
Someone is MAYBE waking up, replace the xx with tt, did not want to hyperlink. :D

hxxp://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/10/heavy-loads-could-burden-womens-infantry-role.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Snaquebite
04-10-2013, 11:13
WOW...Didn't see that coming...

Dusty
04-10-2013, 11:34
Lighten up, Bro. Dusty doesn't mean it personal; Liberace played piano.
The only music Dusty admires is Banjos.

Wrong. On my first album (LP), I played everything but the drums (piano included). Texas Blues, not hillbilly.

I don't have anything against piano players, or I would have wiseassed that photo of your son.

I don't like Liberace because homosexuals, to me, are disgusting.

Your mileage may vary... ;)

ZonieDiver
04-10-2013, 12:33
Wrong. On my first album (LP), I played everything but the drums (piano included). Texas Blues, not hillbilly.

I don't have anything against piano players, or I would have wiseassed that photo of your son.

I don't like Liberace because homosexuals, to me, are disgusting.

Your mileage may vary... ;)

Liberace was a homosexual?!?! No way! Next thing you know, you'll be trying to tell me Rock Hudson was a homosexual. :D

Chairborne64
04-24-2013, 11:54
Looks like the Army is slowing down a bit on this idea.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/23/army-studying-artillery-not-infantry-for-women.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=9

Wonder if they are watching the struggles the Marines are having?

The Reaper
04-24-2013, 19:48
Good.

Let's go to gender neutral selective service registration and APFT scoring.

Then maybe we can talk Combat Arms.

And if you can't break track or help pull a power pack, I don't need you on my crew, Ma'am.

TR

The Reaper
04-29-2013, 20:18
I have no idea how all of this will play out. I hope it is more than simply an interesting social and political experiment. I lack the passion to latch onto this cause. Could be I'm old or adverse to anything involving absolutes. I get more worked up about the state of mil healthcare and PETA threatening our goat labs. But that's just me. I do, however, get upset when an entire group is lumped together as an easier way to deginerate them. Kind of like if I judged all of SF by those asshats who were rude to me at the shoppette today. There are good and bad in all groups.

You may want to reread the rules, and consider starting a new thread in another forum (like General Discussions) to discuss this specific issue.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22758

TR

Lars
05-06-2013, 22:00
You are welcome to your opinions. Many people in this forum share their own on this site. However, those people follow the rules of posting.

Thanks for visiting.

The Reaper
05-06-2013, 22:13
Ah, got it. This is like visiting the great and powerful Oz. I may ask a question, but may not render any opinion or fact or any experience or lessons learned from my inconsequential service. I forgot the rules or simply didn't understand them. If this is more than a glory hole for SFs of old, why not close it to the undeserving wretches such as me? What the hell do I know? I'm allowed to work alongside you, no, never in the actual shit unless something goes horribly wrong, but always be second class? The Army is not a monarchy or a theocracy. POGs get paid the same as everyone else. You can ban me, if you like. Then you will have deliberately chosen to take offense at my words. But I wonder why?

So much for the nice approach....:rolleyes:

First, I don't need to explain myself to you, but since I am feeling generous, the purpose of this specific forum is for non-SF people to ask questions, and for SF qualified personnel to answer them. That means you are entitled to ask questions in this forum, but not to answer them. Grab a big cup of STFU, and read, unless you have somehow acquired a long tab over your many years of service.

That was clearly spelled out in the rules I directed you to, but you either decided you are special, or you have chosen to disregard them.

If you want to change topics, simply start another thread in an appropriate forum. On this specific forum, you are either asking a question, or reading. No need for you to insert your opinion here. This policy applies to everyone, and we have set that precedent adequately here before without consideration of MOS or gender.

You don't know me, and have never worked beside me. If you want to be SF, drop a packet with a request for an exception to policy. But first, follow the same rules and meet the same standards the males in the Army have to.

You also seem to have forgotten a non-disclosure agreement that you should have signed or be aware of before mentioning that facility. Don't do it again.

Finally, this board is not for everyone. Your tendency to ignore rules and your thin skin are likely going to make for a short stay here. Plenty of other non-SF people frequent here, follow the rules, and express their opinions (including opposing ones) thousands of times without ever having to be told what to do. If our rules and manners are not to your liking, or you don't like the way your are treated, refer to the basic board rules. Summary: This is an SF website, you are a visitor, and if you are not happy with your interactions here, stop sniveling, move out, and draw fire.

Now have a very SF day.

TR

longrange1947
06-07-2013, 16:36
And Warrior Princess has what to do with women on combat? He was a male with testosterone and muscles. Women lack that and "she" does now as well. I doubt seriously, that after a year or two on estrogen and missing the testosterone if "she" can perform to standard anymore. :munchin

koz
06-18-2013, 08:46
I read the book the day it came out, and found it to be very interesting, pretty powerful, and overall a good read. Histeam time is but a portion of the book, as it covers His childhood, through His profession and failed marriages, into His post-team time career and he finally accepting her identity as that of a woman and changing her life because of it.

For what it's worth, in the book she refers to herself as "him" before she fully came out, and since then she is she.

He was a him on a team (even according to it). Let's keep it that way.


But since POS Dempsey is planning on lowering the standards and allow GI Jane by 2015, The princess can go back to a team

Team Sergeant
06-19-2013, 12:12
Right, that's what I said haha. It's difficult to stay with the right pronoun.

Also, for whoever did it, why was my post deleted?

Special Forces Questions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a forum where civilians can "ask" the Special Forces soldiers past and present "Special Forces" related questions.

Those questions are then answered by Special Forces soldiers, period.

Questions asked by the general public should NOT be answered by the "general" public.

If you do not have the title of "Quiet Professional" you may ask a question, but leave the "answers" to the QP's.

Richard
06-19-2013, 12:59
Ye Olde Commander's Adage - "Every plan is perfect...until you cross the LD and begin executing it."

Some have worked better than others - we'll see how this one goes as well.

Note: The briefing only talks about planning for initial accession branches currently closed to women. :confused:

Richard

Army Describes Plans For Integrating Women Into Combat
ArmyNews, 18 Jun 2013

No later than Jan. 1, 2016, women will be able to apply to all military occupational specialties, and to all Army units, across the total force.

"The Army is very excited about the approval of our implementation plan to move forward," said Maj. Gen. Howard Bromberg, Army G-1, during a June 18 multi-service briefing in the Pentagon.

Bromberg and representatives from the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command explained how they would implement their specific plans to integrate women into all areas of military service.

The Army's plan, like the plans from other services, include first opening closed units to women, and then opening all closed military occupational specialties, or MOSs, to women.

CLOSED UNITS

Today in the Army, some combat units at battalion level and below are still closed to women. One of the first steps the Army will take is to open those closed units. This step will not involve opening closed MOSs to women, but rather, opening closed units to allow women to serve there in MOSs that are already open to both genders.

Already, the Army has made headway in this area, Bromberg said.

In 2012, the Army opened 14,000 positions in closed units to female Soldiers with the elimination of the "co-location restriction" through its "Exception to Policy" program. Women were assigned to maneuver battalion headquarters in nine brigade combat teams, known as BCTs, as an exception to the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule.

This year, the Army has already signaled its intent to open an additional 6,000 positions within closed units. The Army will accomplish that by opening up an additional eight active-duty BCTs to women -- for a total of 17; nine Army National Guard BCTs; and also positions within special operations aviation.

In a plan submitted to the secretary of defense in April, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh spelled out the details of the Army's way ahead to integrate women into closed units.

The Army will continue to open positions in closed units, initially within the headquarters of combat arms units such as infantry, armor and field artillery. The Army will also open headquarters positions to women in reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and acquisition maneuver battalions.

For enlisted Soldiers, about 76 military occupational specialties that are open to both male and female Soldiers are represented within closed units. For officers, there are about 35 officer areas of concentration represented within closed units. And for warrant officers, there are 19 warrant officer military occupational specialties represented in closed units.

The Army will begin allowing women to move into positions within previously-closed units in early 2014, first with officers and non-commissioned officers, and then with junior Soldiers.

"The further assignment of women to companies and batteries below the level of headquarters will be based on assessments, deployment cycles and specific guidance," reads the implementation plan the Army sent forward to the secretary of defense. "This process will be completed at the end of calendar year 2014 and will provide the framework for opening positions that are currently closed to women."

OPENING NEW JOBS TO WOMEN

For occupations currently closed to women, the Army is planning on developing gender-neutral standards to ensure all Soldiers have fair access to jobs.

However, Bromberg said that it is important for the Army to ensure that the standards meet job requirements.

"Whatever that job or that occupational specialty, we have to make sure we have the requirements of that task established -- regardless of male or female," Bromberg said. "The worst thing we could do is change that standard for that position. We have to be absolutely certain that performance can be understood and applied in combat situations. This isn't to set anybody up for failure. This is all about success. We're calling it Soldier of 2020 -- it's not male Soldier or female Soldier."

Beginning in July 2014, the Army will first open military occupational specialties within the Army Engineer Branch. New opportunities for women there include combat engineer and combat engineer senior sergeant. Once those occupations open, the Army will assign female engineer officers and any reclassified NCOs to combat engineer companies. This will open up approximately 10,281 positions to women.

Beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, the Army will open previously-closed positions within the Field Artillery Branch. After that, opportunities for women will expand to include cannon crewmembers, field artillery automated tactical data systems, fire support specialists and field artillery senior sergeants. Within the Field Artillery Branch, the change will ultimately open about 15,941 jobs to women.

Additionally, the Army will open positions to women with the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch. Positions there are numerous. Enlisted women will for the first time have the opportunity to serve as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, infantrymen, and indirect-fire artillery. As a result of this change, about 90,640 positions will open for women in the Army.

Within the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch, the Army will also offer junior officers and junior NCOs the opportunity to transfer branches or reclassify into these occupations as a way to build a cadre of experienced female Soldiers prior to the arrival of Soldiers who are new to the Army.

http://www.army.mil/article/105814

sinjefe
06-19-2013, 17:06
Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not a SF-related topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum.

A bit on the uppitty side especially considering you are talking to the owner of this site.

Razor
06-20-2013, 11:41
Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not an SF-specific topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum. If the rules really mean that you cannot partake in discussion without being part of the SF community then I apologize for not understanding that; however, if that's the case, then it is not stated in that manner whatsoever in those rules.

In case you're still unfamiliar with the site after being a member for two years, perhaps you should take a look around and note that there is a sub-forum specifically dedicated to discussing books, movies, television and other entertainment media. Surely during your service you've seen or experienced that popping off on a subject in the wrong place or at the wrong time may not be appropriate.

Just so you're aware, you can now either stop making excuses and move out smartly with an internal vow to figure out how things work here, or you can continue whining about how you don't think you're in the wrong, albeit somewhere other than here--your choice.

Razor
06-20-2013, 23:14
So, applying the same logic, how soon do you think it'll be before the service academies are required to eliminate separate men's and women's sports teams and only field gender-integrated teams, to include the intercollegiate football teams? Surely, if women can compete on equal footing with men on the battlefield, the sports field would follow suit, eliminating the need for expensive, duplicate teams in these days of fiscal constraint.

Sorry, I have to go...my hypocrisy alarm is shaking the whole house.

Team Sergeant
06-20-2013, 23:36
Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not an SF-specific topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum. If the rules really mean that you cannot partake in discussion without being part of the SF community then I apologize for not understanding that; however, if that's the case, then it is not stated in that manner whatsoever in those rules.


Of all the forums on here this is the only one that asks our (Special Forces) specific opinion. And if the question is worthy we answer. You are not the first to inadvertently answer on this forum and be warned afterward, nor I'm sure you will not be the last.

If you feel you the need to answer, then answer outside of this forum, a message or another thread, even an email would work. If you do not wish to follow our rules you are free to go somewhere else and be heard. We will not explain the rules again.

SF_BHT
06-20-2013, 23:42
I am not uppity at all. I just do not think that I have in any way violated the rules as presented. My contention isn't personal and no disrespect is intended.

From what I understand, my commenting on the book is fine since I am not attempting to answer, for example, the original question of the thread which is an SF/SFAS specific question and which I obviously do not have the knowledge or experience to answer.

EDIT: To clarify things and to not sound like a douche, I made that post because I thought I was allowed to and because it was on a book, and a topic, that is really interesting to me. As a part of the USASOC/SOCOM/etc community, I feel pretty strongly about the topic and I like to encourage discussion about it with others in the same community. If I have misread or misunderstood the rules, then that is of course my fault. I'm not looking to make a stand here against a bunch of guys who call this their home when I do not. Just wanted, and thought I was able, to post the way I did on the topic that I did.

You know I want to say something but I hear a Helo coming up the valley. Wonder if is my exfil Helo or yours. We will see......

PS: Do not respond to me. hint Hint Hint...

Pete
06-22-2013, 12:33
So, applying the same logic, how soon do you think it'll be before the service academies are required to eliminate separate men's and women's sports teams and only field gender-integrated teams, to include the intercollegiate football teams? .................

They'll never do that - they play football to win.

MR2
06-22-2013, 13:13
They'll never do that - they play football to win.

And we fight wars to... Oh nevermind. :mad:

SF_BHT
06-22-2013, 20:26
You'd never know it, looking at em @_@ :D

Are you going to go down the road of Dreadnought?

People pose a question for QP's and QP's answer here in this section.....:munchin

Do not hear the Helo yet....

Razor
06-24-2013, 16:33
They'll never do that - they play football to win.

Would you mind letting Army know that's the objective? :rolleyes:

Chairborne64
07-03-2013, 11:54
Well it seems that of the 5 female Marines that were going to try the Infantry Officer Course this time around only 2 reported in. These two also failed on the first event. That makes a 100% failure rate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/3/two-more-female-officers-fail-marines-infantry-cou/

Mills
07-03-2013, 13:51
Well it seems that of the 5 female Marines that were going to try the Infantry Officer Course this time around only 2 reported in. These two also failed on the first event. That makes a 100% failure rate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/3/two-more-female-officers-fail-marines-infantry-cou/

Is that prior to the new Gender Neutral standard?

:D

They keep trying to sell this as a "good" thing. I am yet to speak with ANYONE in the regiment that supports women in SF. Everyone seems to be on the same page that "Gender neutral standards equal lower standards".

Trapper John
07-04-2013, 10:55
Just so you can sleep better, I read somewhere that ADM McRaven is doing pretty much as you suggested in commissioning studies of the problem. I think the issues are obvious and a case will be made for exempting women in combat roles within SOCOM. I will try to find that information and send it to you.

Sleep well :)

The Reaper
07-04-2013, 12:44
For those of you who have never been on a team or carried a team ruck on a patrol, let me elaborate.

There are twelve people on a fully manned SFODA.

You have your own mission gear. Each MOS has a different load. That may include one of the multiple radios, antennas, kit bags, aid bags, a collapsible litter, demo, breaching gear, machine gun, sniper rifle, shotgun, maybe a mortar (with bipod and baseplate) or AT weapon, binos, LASER targeting designator, spotting scopes, etc., etc.

You have your weapon (normally a pistol, too) and ammo for your weapon. 30-40 pounds of body armor. Helmet. Smoke grenades. Frags. Night vision gear. Cameras. Batteries for all of your equipment. A gallon of water per day. Eye and ear pro. GPS. Maps and compass. Survival gear. Blow out medical kit. MREs (maybe 1-2 per day, because of the weight) Poncho, poncho liner. Maybe cold weather, infil/exfil, or mobility gear. NBC protective gear.

Team gear. Extra radios, antennas, batteries, machine gun ammo, mortar or AT rounds, demo, IV bags, IED jammer, mine sweeper, etc.

THEN, you can add whatever meager personal gear that you can carry. Maybe a spare t-shirt, a couple of pairs of socks, a sawed off tooth brush. For a week's patrol.

This will total somewhere north of 100 pounds, at times, more than 140 pounds. Studies have shown that trying to move with more than 35% of your body weight is injurious to a healthy, well-condtioned adult male.

If you think this is an easy task, go find a friend who weighs between 100 and 140 pounds. Put them on your back and try to carry them around piggy-back for ten minutes. Imagine doing that in the thin air at 15,000', on a 45% slope, for days on end, while remaining alert for IEDs, enemy, hostile wildlife, and generally things that will hurt you, and being prepared to effectively return fire in a couple of seconds. Gravity may be politically incorrect, but on this planet, it is inevitable.

I have a wife and a daughter. All other considerations aside, neither of them could even lift that load, much less do it for an extended period of time.

If one of them were on a team, and could not carry her share, guess who does? Her teammates, as all of the mission gear still has to be carried.

Is that fair? Do you think you might resent having to leave behind your one spare t-shirt, your spare socks, a spare mag, a radio battery, or an IV bag?

I have watched a fellow soldier bleed to death. It was not a pretty sight, but I never bitched about carrying med supplies or other team gear again.

At what cost, do we waive standards for the sake of social experimentation?

More importantly, are we prepared to accept the cost and consequences?

TR

Box
07-09-2013, 13:15
Two more females wash out of the Marine Infantry Officers course.

The arguments will soon become:

Why do they have to climb the rope twice?
Why does it have to be a twenty foot rope; why can't they lower it to 20 feet?
Why are they even climbing ropes; what if someone falls and gets hurt !

Team Sergeant
07-10-2013, 08:56
If you posted in here (and are not a Special Forces soldier) and were not asking a "Question" your post is now gone. Re-read the sticky (below). This is a forum where anyone can ask a question directed at SF soldiers, and in turn we answer, period. Want to discuss this further, place your own thread in the "Discussions" forum.


Special Forces Questions

This is a forum where civilians can "ask" the Special Forces soldiers past and present "Special Forces" related questions.

Those questions are then answered by Special Forces soldiers, period.

Questions asked by the general public should NOT be answered by the "general" public.

If you do not have the title of "Quiet Professional" you may ask a question, but leave the "answers" to the QP's.

Pete
07-10-2013, 13:24
Female Troops Medevaced from Afghanistan at Higher Rate Than Male Comrades

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/07/09/female-troops-medevaced-from-afghanistan-at-higher-rate-than-male-comrades/#ixzz2YfUIZPrr

"..............Overall, nearly eight times as many males (n=21,046) as females (n=2,673) were medically evacuated; however, the rate of medical evacuations was 22.0 percent higher among females (46.0 per 1,000 dp-yrs [deployed person-years]) than males (37.7 per 1,000 dp-yrs). Of all medical evacuations of males throughout the period (n=21,046), the most frequent associated diagnoses were battle injuries (26.5%), non-battle injuries (15.0%), musculoskeletal disorders (14.6%), and mental disorders (11.4%). In contrast, the most frequent diagnoses among evacuated females during the period (n=2,673) were mental disorders (16.5%), “signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions” (15.3%), musculoskeletal disorders (13.2%), and non-battle injuries (8.9%)....................."

“signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions” (15.3%) - That is in addition to the mental disorders (16.5%).

Tell me again why we are doing this?

hharke
08-24-2013, 20:36
Concur. As I've stated before, Ma'am, as long as the current standards aren't modified, there should be no reason to exclude a female from entering a combat MOS.

I don't agree with the chauvinistic misogynists who compare it to a man trying out for the Bearded Lady gig at Barnum and Bailey. :D

They (Gen Dempsey) have already announced they will not change the standards for the men. Do not clap, as Paul Harvey said. "Here is the other half of the story!"

They plan on coming up a second set of of standards for women. That is so they can say with a straight face "We did not change the standards":mad:

ajls
09-17-2013, 12:15
I have a good friend (sort of an adopted 2nd dad) who served in the Special Forces in Vietnam. I have a great deal of respect for him, and am only looking to find out if he was conned.

The region I live in has an annual Military Appreciation Day festival. Last year my friend met a woman wearing a green beret along with BDU's while walking around the festival, and she told him she earned the beret and Tab going through the SF course
My question is this: Since SF is a combat force, is it even possible for a female( as of 2012) to take the training and get qualified? From the responses and discussion in this thread and others, I would have said no, but since my friend met this woman and seems to believe her, I am not as certain now.

Thank you for your time.

The Reaper
09-17-2013, 12:25
I have a good friend (sort of an adopted 2nd dad) who served in the Special Forces in Vietnam. I have a great deal of respect for him, and am only looking to find out if he was conned.

The region I live in has an annual Military Appreciation Day festival. Last year my friend met a woman wearing a green beret along with BDU's while walking around the festival, and she told him she earned the beret and Tab going through the SF course
My question is this: Since SF is a combat force, is it even possible for a female( as of 2012) to take the training and get qualified? From the responses and discussion in this thread and others, I would have said no, but since my friend met this woman and seems to believe her, I am not as certain now.

Thank you for your time.

Only one was awarded the beret after legal action, and she never served on a team.

After she got the beret, the door was closed and no other women have attended the SFQC.

She retired as an MI Colonel, IIRC.

TR

glebo
09-17-2013, 14:43
Is her name Katie Wilder??? that's who it was...(that "won" her Beret...through legal means).

longrange1947
09-17-2013, 19:00
I am curious as well. Tried to get old Katie girl captured during an Empire Glacier. The OPFOR didn't want her either. :D

Yes, she was pissed at me. I was so hurt by her stare. Not

Dusty
09-17-2013, 19:53
When I see a female play linebacker on a legitimate NFL team, I'll be OK with seeing one on an ODA.

Max_Tab
09-17-2013, 20:25
I've said it before; I think all colleges that receive "ANY" govt money need to have a mandatory 20% of the players be female. People would have a much bigger problem with there alma mater's sports team not being the best, then they would by having a female in SF.

ajls
09-18-2013, 08:59
I'm sorry, but I don't know her name. I can ask if he got it from her, but as this woman was (or at least appeared to be to my friend) active duty, I wouldn't think so. We were talking about women in combat units & he mentioned he met this girl. That's why I wanted to know if it was possible.

Dusty
09-18-2013, 09:20
I'm sorry, but I don't know her name. I can ask if he got it from her, but as this woman was (or at least appeared to be to my friend) active duty, I wouldn't think so. We were talking about women in combat units & he mentioned he met this girl. That's why I wanted to know if it was possible.

Yeah, get her name, rank, unit, blah.

Box
09-18-2013, 18:35
I've said it before; I think all colleges that receive "ANY" govt money need to have a mandatory 20% of the players be female. People would have a much bigger problem with there alma mater's sports team not being the best, then they would by having a female in SF.


That is the most DEAD ON illustration I have heard on this topic since I was a slick sleeved Private.

The same smug group of pricks clamoring for equality would shit in their designer slacks if they thought that "equality" was going to be forced upon them.
...which oddly i the same group of politicians pushing the affordable health care act while their staff works furiously to exclude them from it.

...who cares if the military has marginal combat effectiveness, the middle linebacker is suffering from menstrual cramps and my team isn't going to cover the point spread.

FUCKFUCKFUCK !!!

mark46th
09-18-2013, 19:31
My sister in law was the Athletic Director at a universty here in Southern Calif when Title IX passed. I asked her if that meant that girls could go out for Men's Basketball to which she said, Yes! I then asked her if I could go out for the Women's Softball team to which she said, NO!

Some of us are a little more equal than others- George Orwell, Animal Farm.

MSRlaw
09-20-2013, 06:23
Only one was awarded the beret after legal action, and she never served on a team.

After she got the beret, the door was closed and no other women have attended the SFQC.

She retired as an MI Colonel, IIRC.

TR

What's the legal case called? Or where did it happen? DC? North Carolina? I can't imagine ANY court not dismissing this case immediately. The military has something called "sovereign immunity" from suit. Check out 11th Amendment waivers and "tort" claims.

11Ber
09-21-2013, 04:41
Imagine what you want MSRLaw...it happened.

SF_BHT
09-21-2013, 06:03
What's the legal case called? Or where did it happen? DC? North Carolina? I can't imagine ANY court not dismissing this case immediately. The military has something called "sovereign immunity" from suit. Check out 11th Amendment waivers and "tort" claims.

Why do you come in here and question something like this? Many of us lived through this with her. It is not a subject that we even care to relive as it was such a slap in the face but it did happen. If you wish to know more do some of that super secret legal research and enlighten your self with the facts and quit questioning QP's here in our house.

As you should know the law is not black and white there is a lot of grey and that is why a lot of stupid worthless suits are filed every year.

Remember you are a guest not the owner here.........

Pete
09-21-2013, 06:29
What's the legal case called? Or where did it happen? DC? North Carolina? I can't imagine ANY court not dismissing this case immediately. The military has something called "sovereign immunity" from suit. Check out 11th Amendment waivers and "tort" claims.

Did you miss the class on how do research while you were in law school?

Use the search feature in the upper right corner.

mark46th
09-21-2013, 13:39
For those who ask questions without researching first- "A Message to Garcia."

orion5
10-27-2013, 14:23
Does this visually summarize many of the points in this thread?

The Damn Few, Episode 16: Starship Sealy (AKA Women in the Infantry) (/www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HmT5jqy-iE)

This video should be a must watch for everyone in Congress. Offensive language and all. This is perfect just as it is.

Trapper John
10-27-2013, 15:36
Nailed it! Hope that isn't viewed as a sexist comment. ;)

The Reaper
10-27-2013, 15:46
Does this visually summarize many of the points in this thread?

The Damn Few, Episode 16: Starship Sealy (AKA Women in the Infantry) (/www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HmT5jqy-iE)

This video should be a must watch for everyone in Congress. Offensive language and all. This is perfect just as it is.

LMAO.

Where do you find this stuff?

TR

orion5
10-27-2013, 16:59
LMAO.

Where do you find this stuff?

TR

From Tim Kennedy, and he made no apologies for it either. ;)

SOT(D)
12-02-2013, 00:10
Sigh....I was at Bragg when she-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned was blazing trails for women everywhere. "If asked any questions relating to....you will refer them to the Ft. Bragg PAO." Whatta pain.
My friend, George Miller, God rest his soul, was on duty at MacKall at the time of her foray into the Offficer's Course, and found the rucks that she and the other valiant orienteers had cached. They tossed the contents all over the grid square, and waited for the clever wannabes to return.
She even got to go to Bragg to do her laundry, as he said. George had related this story to me many times, replete with George's own stylistic vulgarities for panache.

Good Lord, I have not thought of that despicable person in a long time....and as posted before, it is not fun to wade through that set of offal-ridden memories.

As a recruiter, and in a class presentation or outdoor event, when told by young women that they could do as men do, I would lie down and tell them that as a medic, they need to pull wounded me to safety. Then the screams start in earnest as they pulled, or try to pull me. Worked all the time.

Lastly, say that women get into important roles, and, let us say, go on an MTT to some 3rd world hole where women have no worth. When they start teaching the male soldiers that they are charged with training, what money would ride on the fact that all the good guys wake up dead?

MtnGoat
12-02-2013, 04:38
Anyone have update on the female ranger course? Is the dark sloth still push for them to start next year? Is there hard news of when? Someone in the know?

Mills
12-03-2013, 20:34
Anyone have update on the female ranger course? Is the dark sloth still push for them to start next year? Is there hard news of when? Someone in the know?

Female ranger course? Did I miss something in regards to them starting a course for them and them only?

God help us all when it hits us on our end. I may be a little bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that there are a few hand selected GI Jane's that are already being groomed (when I say groomed, I mean being taught how to pass the course) in a secret bunker below somewhere.

MtnGoat
12-03-2013, 20:48
Female ranger course? Did I miss something in regards to them starting a course for them and them only?

God help us all when it hits us on our end. I may be a little bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that there are a few hand selected GI Jane's that are already being groomed (when I say groomed, I mean being taught how to pass the course) in a secret bunker below somewhere.

Yeah Bro I think you definitely missed the memo. There is a box up in the right top that has a search function. :p

But yes, RUMINT, four are planned to start in the spring courses.

Mills
12-03-2013, 21:01
Yeah Bro I think you definitely missed the memo. There is a box up in the right top that has a search function. :p

But yes, RUMINT, four are planned to start in the spring courses.

Ouch. We went there huh?

Spring huh? I certainly hope that it ends up in an epic fail. Once again, a sneaking suspicion tells me that anyone who gets in the way of their success will be hidden for the rest of their career and or murdered and buried below the White House.

MR2
12-03-2013, 22:02
So if the winter Rangers sewed their tabs on with white thread, what color thread will those that go through the women's course use?


Maybe I should have used pink font... :munchin

scooter
12-03-2013, 22:47
Trick question. We use velcro now.

Pete
12-27-2013, 13:52
Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257363943/marines-most-female-recruits-dont-meet-new-pullup-standard

"Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.

The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference — just a notice on and an item on its own TV show, .

Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed."

So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test..........."

The article speaks for itself.

Thesis
12-27-2013, 17:09
I heard that women tend to survive longer then men when they can't find food (nutrients to live) yet they are physically incapable of handling heavy workloads.

From a fellow soldier they said that the anatomical structure of a woman is made so that they can survive longer. Such as fat and other soluble nutrients in a woman's anatomy. Henceforth, they live longer in the wilderness.

With that in consideration, what should their position be in combat arms?

I noticed that Israel has combat arms women.

To me I'm for free will but what I interpreted as being an American was we as men always took up arms to protect our children and women. I am open for women in combat arms yet it contradicts with my own mettle.

I should say that women should be allowed support roles in a line company. Conducting resupply missions, working in the UPL or CBRN room. Or being an officer in the line company, but to see a woman in the foxhole next to me, is something different to me. If I see that she keeps her composure under stress than she is more than welcome to fight.

I dunno that's just my thought on it, not like I ever been in a fire fight but through my experiences in basic one girl lost her military bearing during a ruck march and stopped listening to the DI/DS. And cursed at the DI/DS all the way back to the Patrol Base.

I had a squad leader that fits the mentally and physically tough criteria dunno whatever happened to her, she could run miles do pull-ups and everything. Sometimes I wonder if she was a guy cause she had legs like Popeye's arms.

I wonder if anyone here ever worked with the Israeli forces that were combat arms women. I would like to know how women culture are in combat arms.

Pete
12-27-2013, 18:05
Survival in a remote location & Survival in Combat are two different animals.

Will, knowledge, practiced skills and a couple of basic items could get just about anybody through a survival situation in a remote location.

The Reaper
12-27-2013, 18:14
Why not just utilize a single male and female APFT standard and require women to register for Selective Service for a while first?

Have you actually been an Infantryman in combat before?

TR

Thesis
12-27-2013, 19:21
Why not just utilize a single male and female APFT standard and require women to register for Selective Service for a while first?

Have you actually been an Infantryman in combat before?


TR

That's a good idea for Selective Service sir. To be better prepared for the rigor's of war.

No sir, and I have high respect for those who've seen it first hand. I have been through an IED blast though and I lost my composure for a second. Took me a second to recuperate.

Pete
02-18-2014, 15:50
Extreme Park Crashes Taking Outsize Toll on Women

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/sports/olympics/extreme-park-crashes-taking-outsize-toll-on-women.html

"...But unlike some of the time-honored sports of risk, including Alpine skiing, luge and ski jumping, there are few concessions made for women. For both sexes, the walls of the halfpipe are 22 feet tall. The slopestyle course has the same tricky rails and the same massive jumps. ...."

Extreme Park = Unfair?

Combat = Fair?

PRB
02-18-2014, 16:06
Extreme Park Crashes Taking Outsize Toll on Women

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/sports/olympics/extreme-park-crashes-taking-outsize-toll-on-women.html

"...But unlike some of the time-honored sports of risk, including Alpine skiing, luge and ski jumping, there are few concessions made for women. For both sexes, the walls of the halfpipe are 22 feet tall. The slopestyle course has the same tricky rails and the same massive jumps. ...."

Extreme Park = Unfair?

Combat = Fair?

To obvious for the 'fairness' maroon's

The Reaper
02-18-2014, 17:41
Because women are not men no matter how unfashionable it is to say.

TR

Mills
02-20-2014, 21:12
Because women are not men no matter how unfashinable it is to say.

TR

We certainly need to reaffirm our current regime of that fact.

Took a survey today in regards to this whole mess, hopefully the brass will actually listen to the masses.

Kemical
02-22-2014, 09:00
Here is a pretty good article from a female combat vets point of view. Its the whole other side of the conversation that nobody is trying to have.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
She brings up some very legitimate points (unit cohesion?).

Stiletto11
02-22-2014, 09:32
Because women are not men no matter how unfashionable it is to say.

TR

I've seen a few that look like men;"the horror.":D

WarriorDiplomat
04-21-2014, 13:05
With our President and Mr. Panetta's decision to allow women to hold a Combat MOS. Do you believe we will be seeing women in SFAS in the near future? I am curious as to your opinions on the matter.

Yes the word on the street is 2015 there will be "test cases" in SFAS. And the word from higher is get on board with it or leave SF.

I have to say this I for one disagree with any consideration not so much for the strength issues. I have seen plenty of women prove me wrong watching the eco-challenge and naked and afraid shows. I have seen some phenomenally strong physical women in gyms from Ft Lewis to Germany, the real issue is part the physical piece the other part is nature.

Everyone here who has been on an ODA knows the debauchery that goes on overseas with the younger single guys on the ODA's. The drama that will go on is the real issue.

1. How many wives are going to allow there husbands to stay in Special Forces when an attractive(even marginally) woman is assigned to an ODA? And Vice Versa. Especially as team leader.Their are enough jealousy accusations that are thrown around now when its all men. Women are as territorial as any man when it comes to their husbands.

2. The men of Special Forces unlike the other SOF (CA,PSYOP) SF missions are oriented towards war making capabilities and are alpha males and ultra competitive, how many self respecting men will want to stay on a team when the ODA is no longer competitive for missions into countries that are male dominated warrior cultures who see woman as servants or 2nd class citizens?

3. Security will be an issue the projection of power is sometimes our security and salvation in many countries. How vulnerable will this make us in the eyes of our enemies in other countries.

4. Sorry fellas have to address this. 4-9 months is a long time without sex for those that are in their prime and active away from work. What happens when a F-Buddy relationship starts on an ODA between Tm members yes I understand this could happen with 2 gay men, but Special Forces are primarily hetero and are the majority 99% is my guess of SF (Sorry 1% not significant enough to address). now lets get 2-3 horny YOUNG guys on a team fighting over the territory or sharing.

5. What if she is the Tm Leader or the 18F (Key Leader) and cannot deploy due to pregnancy or deploys pregnant and must return??

6. What if the father is a member of the team but noone knows who is the actual father? what legal actions will a group take to discipline the members? What will be the regiment wide backlash?.

7. What if the female develops PMS, or gets emotional under REAL world stress. Lets face it stress innoculation is valuable but is a simulation in the Q and has a difinitive end real world is far different. Especially since we cannot truly simulate reality. Case in point is the train as you fight axiom we quote the reality is if we really trained as we fight we would have real bullets and real indirect in training flying at our students which would mean real casevacs and caching of a body to preserve the teams survival. Bottom line is the stress is for experience and conditioning just like train as you fight is for good habits.'

8. Can we as a country recover in a strategic region if having a women as a GB compromises the legitimacy of SOF in the eyes of the indig?. And no the CA and Psyops are not confused with us and our purpose.

9. Is this whole issue sending a signal to the world of how weak our culture has gotten, I know some would suggest progressive which is code for liberal. The signal it appears to send is we can no longer find qualified quality men to join,.... the men have lost their warrior status in our society.

10. Nepotism for sexual favors for crying out loud this issue has been around since men and women have served together. Can you imagine the Tm Leader or Tm Sgt getting caught up in giving a school slot to a female for some sexual favors. Imagine that counseling statement from a jealous TM Leader.

When the old timers tell the joke about the difference about how the SF Team attacks a hill and the Rangers train and starve for 3 days we open the door to feminist. Yeah it's funny but makes SF look like a bunch of lazy fat guys that only needs wit and wisdom not toughness and tenacity What about the above perception is not possible for a woman?.

The Rest of the story of that joke should be ODAs have already spent years in said country training and building rapport with and gaining the respect and trust of the indigenous who live their and they send out the advisers to plan the mission with indig leaders and then advise and fight along with them.

The old adage of if you ain't cheating you ain't trying is of the same fallacy and send the same signal, Specifically when it comes to the Q-course this is a failure attitude. We give you limited resources and ample training and a seemingly impossible mission now do you have what it takes to succeed in spite of all this?? not until you have exhausted all avenues do you cheat and just like real world you role the dice with your career (real world= life).

Now all of you BTDT's know I was being conservative with the real world issues between males and females especially as our force gets younger and less seasoned military wise.

I wonder what C.I.D. or the IG thinks of this? I wonder if they are already trying to figure out how to deal with all these issues because they of all the people in the military understand the nature of putting men and women together regardless of alleged "professionalism"

bailaviborita
07-23-2014, 13:28
What about the song?

Fighting soldiers from the sky
Fearless men who jump and die
Men who mean just what they say
The brave men of the Green Beret

These are men, America's best
One hundred men we'll test today

Men who fight by night and day

Back at home a young wife waits
Her Green Beret has met his fate
He has died for those oppressed
Leaving her this last request

Put silver wings on my son's chest
Make him one of America's best
He'll be a man they'll test one day
Have him win the Green Beret

I don't think we own the copyright- so do we keep playing it and offend or do we stop playing it?

I was joking that this was a topic up at USASOC the other day and not only did people think I was serious- they actually started debating what we needed to do.

"Project Diane" has lots of people working...

My .02:

- I think Groups should have a team of females to help with those missions where it makes sense to have them. They should only be farmed out for missions in which teams request them- by name, and then vet them with an option to return at any time for any reason. Mission first.
- I think those at Group should go through their own selection course at SWCS and be assigned to either Psyop or CA- and picked based on current mission requirements- thus allowing for the most flexibility. If you need a woman to climb a mountain in Afghanistan and peek under dresses then that is different than having a woman pose as your wife in civilian clothes in Delhi.

Anything else and women will harm the mission- since it would by definition make whatever team the few that get in inflexible. If your mission- for whatever reason- would be compromised or risk failure due to having to take a woman along- then that means we won't priorize mission first.

This is all wrapped up in my opinion with the current intellectual theories that assert:

- diversity is its own attribute, trumping all others
- equality of outcome is what we should aim for
- individual equality is what the military should be about
- the cultural change within our society needs to be reflected and/or led by our military- and that cultural change should be that men aren't macho and that women are.
- women in charge of our society and military would mean less war
- more women in charge of the military will mean less sexual harassment and assault
- more women in the military will mean the end of football and UFC-style fighting (for men)
- more women in charge will mean less capitalism and less taking advantage of the poor and the weak

Crazily- I've heard some of these arguments made (all linked together...) on our country's campuses!!

This recent article is typical: https://sonoranswitchback.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/the-ranger-tab-who-will-be-the-first-woman-to-wear-it/

The Reaper
09-08-2014, 13:42
Interesting read.

TR

Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry

Marine infantry isn't broken, it doesn't need to be "fixed"

Volume 98, Issue 9

Author: Capt Lauren F. Serrano

2013 MajGen Harold W. Chase Prize Essay Contest: 1st Place

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry

While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the "Be Bold" advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current "hot topic" came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends. After weeks of contemplation and debate, I am "being bold" and coming clean: I am a female Marine officer and I do not believe women should serve in the infantry. I recognize that this is a strong statement that will be vehemently challenged by many. I have not come to this opinion lightly and I do not take joy in taking a stance that does not support equal opportunity for all. I have spent countless hours discussing this topic with many civilians and Marines and have discovered that a large number of people agree with the arguments in this article but do not wish to get involved in the public discussion. Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into infantry are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in infantry-perhaps this is failure to adapt or perhaps it is experienced-based reasoning. National Public Radio's recent segment, "Looking for a Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women," stated, "Col Weinberg admits there's anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren't rushing to serve in ground combat."1 If the infantry had opened to women while I was still a midshipman or second lieutenant I probably would have jumped at the opportunity because of the novelty, excitement, and challenge; but, to my own disappointment, my views have drastically changd with experience and knowledge. Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. This article addresses many issues regarding incorporating women into the infantry that have yet to be discussed in much of the current discourse that has focused primarily on the physical standards.

Before you disagree, remember that war is not a fair business. Adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their adversary's moral standards or rules of engagement. Although in today's world many gory, violent war tactics are considered immoral, archaic, and banned by international law or the Geneva Conventions, adversaries still must give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to ensure success. For the Marine Corps, this means ensuring that the infantry grunt (03XX) units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained, and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and win. Although perhaps advantageous to individuals and the national movement for complete gender equality, incorporating women into infantry units is not in the best interest of the Marine Corps or U.S. national security.

It's Not About Individuals

My argument has little to do with whether women can pass the Infantry Officer Course or Infantry Training Battalion, or endure the hardships of combat. Even those select women who can physically endure the infantry are still posing a threat to the infantry mission and readiness. Female Marines who want to stir the pot by joining the infantry ranks are more interested in their careers than the needs of the Corps-they are selfish. 2dLt Sage Santangelo's recent article in The Washington Post about why women are failing Infantry Officer Course argued that "the Marine Corps needs to set women up to succeed in combat roles."2 Why? How will that contribute to a better fighting force, the needs of the Marine Corps, and the success of young enlisted Marines? The time, energy, and conflict associated with setting women up for success in infantry billets will not make the Marine Corps more combat effective.

I have no doubt that there are women who can pass initial infantry schools-and I applaud their strength. However, as Capt Katie Petronio argued in her 2013 Gazette article, "Get Over It! We are not all created equal," long infantry careers for female Marines will eventually lead to career-ending medical conditions as they get older and their bodies are unable to withstand the years of constant infantry training.3 For the already fiscally strained military, this will lead to an increase in medically retired Marines who rate medical financial support for the rest of their lives.

Women who claim that they are not afforded traditional leadership opportunities by not being infantry officers are clearly not aware of the plethora of leadership opportunities in the Marine Corps. There are many other MOSs that provide great opportunities for leadership, some even more so than in the infantry. For example, communications or logistics lieutenants could have as many as 60 Marines in their charge. Great Marine officers embody leadership principals regardless of the MOS or billet they are assigned. Marines are taught to "grow where planted," and a female Marine officer, regardless of MOS, can be just as successful as a male infantry officer if she is truly a leader and puts the needs of her Marines above her own. Success is about performance, not MOS. Women should seek opportunities to serve where they will be of most use to the Corps, not where the Corps can serve their personal career interests.

Many (mostly civilians) have argued that it is sexist and against the Nation's attempt to promote gender equality to refuse infantry to women. Personnel in leadership positions have kept quiet or agreed to open the infantry to women for fear of being called sexist or of not promoting equal opportunities, or not wanting to be attacked by feminists. I am forever indebted to the many women who courageously advocated for the women's rights that I enjoy today. Perhaps it is slightly unfair to the few women who desire to join the infantry, but that should be a necessary accepted evil because the needs of the Marine Corps are more important to society. Keeping women out of the infantry is not about oppressing women's rights or blockading gender equality, it's about maintaining the most combat effective military. In an age where U.S. hegemony is slowly decreasing and nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are building their conventional forces, citizens should be more interested in creating the strongest, best-trained, most ready infantry force to defend our national interests.

The Mission

Incorporating women into the infantry does not add to the infantry mission to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat." Period. The mission does not say, "with ranks of equal men and women, locate, close with close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat." The implied task is to create an infantry community of warriors that can best accomplish the mission. As all Marines are taught from day one of training, the mission always comes first. Marines attempt to accomplish the mission at all cost, and it is the duty of the higher headquarters of the Marine Corps to provide Marines with the best training and circumstances possible to accomplish the mission. Incorporating women into the infantry will actually make the mission more difficult to accomplish and take away from the training, readiness, and morale of the infantry units.

Several years ago the Marine Corps began allowing women into certain sections of special operations forces (SOF) and into the counterintelligence/human intelligence (CI/HumInt) MOS. The purpose behind this was to fill a gap and tap resources that men in those MOSs were unable to access. By nature of their gender, women were able to gain placement and access to information and locations that were previously untapped by men. As a result, the SOF and CI/HumInt communities grew stronger and more effective, and better accomplished their missions. The need for females to accomplish certain mission sets drove these communities to accept women. This same need does not exist in a basic rifle squad. Furthermore, the average age, experience, and maturity level of Marines in the SOF and CI/HumInt communities is much higher and more tolerant, which mitigates much of the testosterone-driven behavior that is a common characteristic of young infantrymen.

(Cont. at link above.)

tom kelly
09-10-2014, 17:18
The author gives a realistic view and the outcome of woman serving as a member of a combat team. Now; FAILURE becomes an option.....Anyone remember The Kate Wilder incident...That turned out well for the school house. tom kelly

MtnGoat
09-16-2014, 07:47
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140912/NEWS/309120058/Women-invited-apply-Ranger-School

I'd like to know the reason behind this. No Women in a Ranger Batt., So why send them or open the school to them? Oh for the leadership value!!?? So women don't have any leadership in the Army or military currently? Yet they need Combat leadership skills?

glebo
09-16-2014, 08:16
I'd like to know the reason behind this. No Women in a Ranger Batt., So why send them or open the school to them? Oh for the leadership value!!?? So women don't have any leadership in the Army or military currently? Yet they need Combat leadership skills?

probably the same reason they send all those "cadidiots" through during summer camp. Gotta have the tab for credibility and such...

But, who really knows...it makes sense to someone, just not us...

Pete
09-16-2014, 08:28
The standards will not be lowered - they will just be changed to reflect that males and females are different.

Then the leaders can say the females passed the course requirements in place at that time.

So will the females be required to show up with the required Ranger haircut?

DDD
09-16-2014, 12:29
How well did the female suport teams (or whatever they were called) work out in Afghanistan? Not a retorical question, I really don't know.

bailaviborita
09-17-2014, 07:01
I talked to a few folks down at Benning and they say this is a test- much like the Marine's tests with their basic courses. This will be used to inform leadership as to whether they need to fight to keep women out of the infantry, no women can pass Ranger (or so few that it is basically "none"), or it isn't an issue. The problem they are having is that Ranger is considered a leadership course and thus physical standards are considered by many to be arbitrary or secondary. And of course you get the "combat has changed- you don't need 100 lbs anymore" crowd. It will be interesting to see what happens- if any pass and if standards are left intact. Will be really interesting to see what happens if one gets punched out for falling asleep on patrol and/or gets peered really low---

As for the FETs/CSTs- I've heard REALLY bad stories about them from multiple sources- but you'll never see those public because there is tremendous pressure to use them as proof that women can do combat and are needed. Bottom line: they got in the way and were forced on many for political reasons... But I'm sure that reality won't get in the way of the agenda nazis-

MtnGoat
09-17-2014, 07:17
As for the FETs/CSTs- I've heard REALLY bad stories about them from multiple sources- but you'll never see those public because there is tremendous pressure to use them as proof that women can do combat and are needed. Bottom line: they got in the way and were forced on many for political reasons... But I'm sure that reality won't get in the way of the agenda nazis-

I can speak for the CST problems. I hate that we have a Command that allows so many Females to Graduate from the SWC and Group Driven programs. I would love to see from what 75th Reg has going on. So if we let even a few contiue on at the Group Level or from our Command level, what does that say to the Future for females coming into SFODA or with a SF Group in some kind of capacity, say as in AFO.

As Far as the USMC, I think they are one their 4th or 5th Try for Females going through their Basic Infantry officer course, no JOY!! They have kepted the standards from a fellow Co-worker who's son is an Instructor/ USMC INF Officer. So that's good to hear. STANDARDS!!

MtnGoat
09-17-2014, 07:28
How well did the female suport teams (or whatever they were called) work out in Afghanistan? Not a retorical question, I really don't know.

DDD - IMO They typically all have poor rating and support. No need for them when we had CA fermales. The recuitment came from Females in CA going out to pull females into this Program. SO why not just add a new position to the CA Team (CAT) to meet the role? No funding for equipment, Weapons and Full MTOE what POMed for this program.

DDD
09-17-2014, 10:52
Thanks Mtn Gt,
I didn't think it was a very successful program, because they (the Army) haven't been touting it's contributions to the effort. You only hear the people that think women in combat is a good thing, say "but what about the CSTs?"

I always thought that I was doing what I did so others didn't have to. Be it women, liberals, LGBTWXYZ.....

Box
09-17-2014, 11:36
How well did the female suport teams (or whatever they were called) work out in Afghanistan? Not a retorical question, I really don't know.

Wow...
I can't give you an honest answer on an open board that I know is read by people that would shoot me in the face with a burst of poison tipped NCOER bullets if they ever read my comments.

So instead I'll just say, the CST's are AWESOME. We should all get behind this fine program. It is cerainly the way ahead for integrating female troops into active SOF duty positions.


...I hope that answers your question. I have to go throw up now.

DDD
09-17-2014, 11:52
Don't hold back...Get it all out, you'll feel better.:D

The Reaper
09-17-2014, 14:12
Wow...
I can't give you an honest answer on an open board that I know is read by people that would shoot me in the face with a burst of poison tipped NCOER bullets if they ever read my comments.

So instead I'll just say, the CST's are AWESOME. We should all get behind this fine program. It is cerainly the way ahead for integrating female troops into active SOF duty positions.


...I hope that answers your question. I have to go throw up now.

And they have already been through Selection!

TR

Joker
09-17-2014, 20:11
Wow...

...I hope that answers your question. I have to go throw up now.

You need to go take a shower after that one.:D

Razor
09-20-2014, 23:56
Why are they running this pilot program? Because when a handful of women complete the course (and make no mistake, at some point a handful WILL complete the course--what RI is going to risk his career to give out a patrol no-go, deserved or not), the gender integrators will all say, "Women have successfully completed one of the more physically demanding combat arms schools the Army has...this proves they can hang with the guys, and thus should be integrated into combat arms units right away!".

Box
09-21-2014, 00:32
Its all part of the magic show...
...you can't pull a rabbit out of your hat unless you have a hat.

Mills
10-02-2014, 04:39
I typically enjoy reading articles from Havok Journal, However this one seemed quite out of place and poorly written.

http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/lady-seals-and-rangers-and-recon-oh-my

Is this some sort of stunt? Or is the author basing his assumptions off of limited experience?

The arguments are not common sense based, and they only really look good on paper.

So much for ever reading anything written by Leo Jenkins again................

tom kelly
10-02-2014, 16:12
It's PC and another grand social experiment, brought about by the ultra liberal left. "When the going gets tough; The woman get gone girl" My opinion. tom Kelly.

Mills
10-04-2014, 12:19
Even Leon Panetta is trying to distance himself from our comrade in chief.

He seems to be singing the same old "I told ya so" song that so many leaders these days are singing.

Personally, I wish someone could ask him directly what the fuck was up with the opening of closed positions in the military to women. Now that he is a civilian, maybe he would actually give us some sort of reason............or at least tell us that "Barry made him do it".

Anything would be better than the politically correct, progressive load of garbage that was fed to us in early 2013 when this clown show first began.

Maybe someone can catch him at a book signing or something and corner him on it. Our leaders need to give us a much better argument that the cowardly reasons that they are currently using to justify fixing something that isn't broken.

bailaviborita
10-05-2014, 07:22
The reason the military is going along is that our leadership is weak. Not too long ago a chief threatened to resign if forced to accept a four star female who was not qualified other than she was female (Kennedy). The admin backed down. Since then we have had ultra politicians in charge- none refusing to stand up for what is right...

Agoge2
10-05-2014, 08:32
The reason the military is going along is that our leadership is weak. Not too long ago a chief threatened to resign if forced to accept a four star female who was not qualified other than she was female (Kennedy). The admin backed down. Since then we have had ultra politicians in charge- none refusing to stand up for what is right...

Sadly enough, the higher up the chain those "leaders" go, the more they become politicians and the higher their political aspirations go with them. They forget the fact they were once a warrior and have become politicians, and with that change, they have surrendered their backbones.

I always like the way they seem to find their spines again once they are no longer employed in their positions and decide to speak out while making their book tours.

Box
10-05-2014, 09:46
I always like the way they seem to find their spines again once they are no longer employed in their positions and decide to speak out while making their book tours.


...amazing isn't it.

Fuck them very much.

blacksmoke
10-05-2014, 17:02
Because they believe the mission comes first, they are team players. The terms yes men, sissy, and politician do not apply.

Mills
10-06-2014, 00:09
...amazing isn't it.

Fuck them very much.

So maybe we should get ourselves a task org together in regards to mapping book tours and publicly cornering former leaders in order to give us a real explanation.

If anything, maybe we can shame some of our future leaders into doing what is right, in the best interest of the men on the ground.

Box
10-06-2014, 05:41
So maybe we should get ourselves a task org together in regards to mapping book tours and publicly cornering former leaders in order to give us a real explanation.

If anything, maybe we can shame some of our future leaders into doing what is right, in the best interest of the men on the ground.

Shame: a feeling of guilt, regret, or sadness, that you have because you know you have done something wrong; the ability to feel guilt, regret, or embarrassment; dishonor

...I don't believe we could raid any book signing tour that would produce an individual capable of 'shame'

We have a GO that took an active part in misleading the Tillman family, knowingly running a cover up to push a Silver Star through to avoid embarrassment, and then creating a command climate that turned out that awesome Rolling Stone piece. This was the same guy that accepted a position to lead the White House Program to support military families.
...you wont shame THAT GUY At a book signing.
In fact, if you make a scene security will probably drag you out into the parking lot and fuck you up.

We also have a GO that sat on top of a set of Dogmatic morality based rules that crushed the careers of numerous service members all the while he was using his duty position to bang his married biographer on our dime.
...are we gonna shame him? In fact he probably still has enough of a fan club in the CIA that your brakes might fail on your car on your way home if one was to make a public scene that embarrassed him.

We had a retired GO that told the American public that advertised his devotion to the president and his political party, he supported his boss going into Iraq only so he could vote for the other party's candidate in the next two presidential elections while telling everyone that he didn't really support going into Iraq. He chose to explain away HIS actions on a political party that just dont get it.
...I dont think you'll find any shame at one of his book signings either.

I love your idea... it is awesome. The problem is that you need a baseline to work from if you plan on using 'shame' to get answers.
I don't believe that most American leadership, elected or otherwise, at that level of influence possess the conscience needed to respond to the concept of shame.

Women in combat simply isn't their problem any more. For the rest of us; if you aren't on board, it's only because you "dont get it"


I'm ok to admit that I am OK with things the way they are for the time being.
Go ahead and get in a rush to replace the POTUS if you like; if HRC gets into that office you can bet your last three pubic hairs that women in combat will be way down on the list of things we need to worry about.

Mills
10-06-2014, 15:20
If you only knew how many times I have been told that I "don't get it" during this current deployment.

Maybe you and I are the ones with the problems.

Joker
10-06-2014, 16:07
YOU TWO just don't get it!

Okay, name me a standing military that had women as it's fighting force. If they were so dammed good where are they today?

Be safe.

The Reaper
10-06-2014, 16:13
YOU TWO just don't get it!

Okay, name me a standing military that had women as it's fighting force. If they were so dammed good where are they today?

Be safe.

Well, the Israelis have females in their Army, but they pretty much have to, due to their manpower situation.

Haven't seen any of them in their infantry or SOF roles, either.

TR

Box
10-06-2014, 21:52
...the Amazons could have been a global power with a little bit of tech support

Brush Okie
10-06-2014, 22:05
Well, the Israelis have females in their Armyt, but they pretty much have to, due to their manpower situation.

Haven't seen any of them in their infantry or SOF roles, either.

TR

While females play a valuable role in their Army my understanding they tried to incorporate them into the infantry years ago ie 40's or so and it just did not work very well.

Here is a link with the no shit truth about what happened. Emphasis mine.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#v1IRt07lxJaCZ0JB.99

Streck-Fu
10-07-2014, 06:54
...the Amazons could have been a global power with a little bit of tech support

They didn't employ logistics effectively.

The Reaper
10-08-2014, 21:53
U.S. MARINES' TESTS UNDERMINE WOMEN-IN-COMBAT AGENDA

Artillery simulation revealed 28 times as many females as males failed

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/10/u-s-marines-tests-undermine-women-in-combat-agenda/#EbwEwquse8GsORV8.99

BOB UNRUH

Faced with a January 2016 deadline for introducing women to combat units, the U.S. Marines have discovered that for every man who fails a simulated artillery lift-and-carry test, 28 women fail.

And for a test simulating moving over a seven-foot high wall, less than 1.2 percent of the men could not get over, compared to 21.32 percent of women.
The results were found in Marine Corps documentation by the Center for Military Readiness, which issued a report called "U.S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?"

According to CMR, a non-profit think tank, the Obama administration expects the Marine Corps to find a way to assign women to ground combat units without lowering standards.

"In the independent view of CMR, quantitative research done so far indicates that these expectations cannot be met," the group said

"Androgenic characteristics in men, which are not going to change, account for greater muscle power and aerobic (endurance) capabilities that are essential for survival and mission accomplishment in direct ground combat," the report said.

According to the CMR study's executive summary, the Marines obtained information from 409 men and 379 women who volunteered to perform five "proxy" tests to simulate combat demands.

"These capabilities are essential for survival and mission success in direct ground combat," the study found.

In a pull-up test, women averaged 3.59 while men averaged 15.69 - more than four times as many.

A "clean and press" event involved single lifts of 70, 80, 95 and 115 pounds plus six repetitions of a 65 pound lift.

Eighty percent of the men passed the 115 pound test but only 8.7 percent of the women.

In the 120 mm tank loading simulation, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 pounds five times in 35 seconds or less. Men failed at a less than 1 percent rate while women failed at a rate of 18.68 percent.

The Marines said nearly one in five women "could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time."

"It would be very likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank]."

The artillery lift and carry had volunteers pick up a 95 pound artillery round and carry it 50 meters in under two minutes. Again, less than 1 percent of the men failed but 28.2 percent of women.

The obstacle involved a seven-foot wall with a 20-inch box, simulating a fellow soldier's helping hand. Less than 1.2 percent of the men failed and 21.3 percent of the women.

CMR's report said while the tests don't replicate combat, "they do constitute empirical data based on reality, not theories about gender equality."

The organization said it was Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos who launched the research projects on ground combat physical requirements, just after then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta launched a calendar calling for a repeal of all women's exemptions from direct ground combat units by January 2016.

"Recent proxy tests of physical strength have produced empirical data and inconvenient facts that discredit theories about gender 'diversity' in combat," said CMR President Elaine Donnelly.

"None of the Marine Corps research findings produced so far support the theory that women can or should be considered interchangeable with men in land combat fighting teams. On the contrary, recent tests confirm how unfair and unrealistic it would be to impose man-sized combat loads on military women's backs," she said.

"Nor is there any evidence that women want to be treated like men in the combat arms units. Orders to serve in that unforgiving environment would disadvantage women and impose on them disproportionate risks of physical injuries. This issue is not about careers − military women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men, and respect for them has never been higher."

And she said: "Civilian leaders in the Pentagon and Congress have the responsibility to be honest about what policies are best for women, men, and combat arms units in all branches of the service. The Interim CMR Special Report does not fault the Marine Corps or personnel who volunteered to participate in research tests, but it does question the judgment and agenda of administration officials who want to order (not 'allow') women into the combat arms by January 2016."

A WND request for comment from the Department of Defense was unanswered.
Donnelly explained to WND that getting the information was not easy, but it was needed.

She said the results confirm previous findings indicating the mandate for women in combat won't work.

The report said a 2013 survey of Army women found 92.5 percent of 30,000 would decline a combat arms assignment if offered, but they won't really have a choice, since testimony to Congress that same year revealed the military will assign women to such units.

"That's why we call them orders," the military commented.

"None of the USMC research results produced so far support activists' theories that women can be physical equals and interchangeable with men in the combat arms," the study found. "Reliance on unrealistic 'best case' scenarios would impose heavy burdens on women and put all troops at greater risk. Congress should exercise diligent oversight, challenging all assumptions and theories, political mandates, media bias, public misperceptions and misguided group-think in academia and the administration.

"Respect for military women, which is greater than ever, demands nothing less.

"This is an interim report and more information is expected in coming months.

At this time, however, nothing in the research done so far indicates that there is or can be a workable plan to train and deploy women in units that engage in deliberate offensive against the enemy," the CMR report said.

"Contrary to popular beliefs, eligibility for the combat arms would harm women, not help them," the organization said, "Defense Department data have shown for decades that military women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men."

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/10/u-s-marines-tests-undermine-women-in-combat-agenda/#lFJX7dG01QBjEplm.99

Box
10-09-2014, 00:09
meh...

I see three easy COA's to deal with this:

LImosine liberals can accept that only 8.7 out of every one hundred women can be artillery persons...

Limosine liberals will lobby the senate armed services committee to find a new aquisitions channel that produces lighter artillery shells...

Limosine Liberals will get the IRS to audit the companies that build artillery shells until thye volunatrily develop lighter artillery shells...

Mills
10-09-2014, 01:00
Agreed with you 100%.

However................it is nice to actually see some hard data coming out, because that is the only thing that might save us in the end. That and getting some people to make a whole lot of noise about it. We all know what the end state is by the progressive culture, but it is a simple fact of how much damage are our leaders going to accept to the Military, and the Regiment.

Not a single point that has been made by our leaders will ever make my ODA, a better ODA.

I really wish Bill O'reilly had mentioned the removal of said ban on combat positions to women when he interviewed Panetta the other night. It would have been nice to see if he gave a straight answer or danced around it.

Box
10-09-2014, 01:34
I'm just doubtfull that "hard facts" has anything to do with how this plays out inside the belt way...

It is however, VERY comforting that the USMC didn't roll over and bury the statistics.
Refreshing that one of the services is refusing to eat the sandwich and drink the kool aid.

abc_123
10-09-2014, 08:01
Billy, I agree 100% and thought the same about the USMC.

I am sad that I cannot say the same for the Army in which I have served for over 20years.

MtnGoat
10-09-2014, 08:03
It is however, VERY comforting that the USMC didn't roll over and bury the statistics.
Refreshing that one of the services is refusing to eat the sandwich and drink the kool aid.

AMEN!!!!

Streck-Fu
10-09-2014, 08:32
Here is the CMR report the above article is based on: LINK (http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf)

sg1987
10-09-2014, 12:13
I'm just doubtfull that "hard facts" has anything to do with how this plays out inside the belt way...

It is however, VERY comforting that the USMC didn't roll over and bury the statistics.
Refreshing that one of the services is refusing to eat the sandwich and drink the kool aid.

I have often wondered how senior leadership in the USMC resists negative trends that other branches embrace?? How do they succeed where others fail?

nousdefions
10-09-2014, 14:22
I have often wondered how senior leadership in the USMC resists negative trends that other branches embrace?? How do they succeed where others fail?

Balls?

The Reaper
10-09-2014, 15:18
Balls?

Not much longer (literally and figuratively), if the libs have their way.

I wonder how America is going to react when large numbers of their daughters start coming home in body bags.

Clearly, it won't affect progressives much, who are largely content to let others fight and die for them and their freedoms.

TR

Streck-Fu
10-09-2014, 15:35
I wonder how America is going to react when large numbers of their daughters start coming home in body bags.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Pick me Mr. Reaper!

That's easy. Allow women into Combat Arms and then stop going to war.

Peregrino
10-09-2014, 20:12
Oh! Oh! Oh! Pick me Mr. Reaper!

That's easy. Allow women into Combat Arms and then stop going to war.

That's the first thing I've heard/read that actually makes sense as a plausible motive behind this idiocy. :mad:

Box
10-10-2014, 01:47
Maybe the USMC senior leadership just doesn't like the taste of dick...
...no one else seems to mind.

Besides, a swig of that that social engineering kool-aid should wash the taste out pretty quick.
Pretend that instead of blowing the liberal advocacy groups and washing it down with kool-aid, you are actually having a porterhouse and a Bass Ale.

If that doesn't work a few shots of whiskey should dull the pain.


We just need to assimilate and we'll all feel better.

Pete
10-12-2014, 06:29
Military branches say they will continue to open jobs for female troops

http://www.fayobserver.com/military/military-branches-say-they-will-continue-to-open-jobs-for/article_9ede87e6-2468-5b20-9116-752e4a21fd73.html

"Military leaders will continue to broaden opportunities for women in each of the four service branches, officials said.

Speaking during a panel discussion at the 2014 Military Reporters and Editors Conference in Washington, representatives of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines described efforts to open more positions to women...."

This article contains the number of jobs still closed to females - damn few.

I'll say it again - The main job for a Green Beret is on the A Team. Most GB's will fight like hell to stay there or get back there.

But within 2 years of the first crop of female GB "Graduates" hitting the A Teams most will have gone on to the B Team, C Team or other GB slots as far from the A Team as they can get.

Would make for some interesting stats but I'm sure big Army will not want to release them.

Agoge2
10-12-2014, 08:06
...Would make for some interesting stats but I'm sure big Army will not want to release them.

That is absolutely one of the worst truths for this situation. The non-reporting of the truth...minus the fact of whether or not they changed the standards.

If they would start this out by not changing the standards at all and then truly report the results as they are -- success-failure rates -- then at least the truth of the matter would be out there for all to see.

However, once politics enters the arena...all "truth" is out and the programs will go forward.

Pete
10-12-2014, 08:35
Still wondering if the first female Ranger students will show up with the required Ranger haircut - or if that will be the first standard to fall.

bailaviborita
10-13-2014, 07:44
A female Psyop captain I know told me she has been up to DC to talk to the powers that be on this issue as a part of a group call for candidates . She is already ARSOF and runs marathons- so she seemed a natural to go Ranger or SF. She told them she thought the whole thing was a dumb idea- that women wouldn't improve the tactical ability of any combat unit except maybe in a very few cases - and attaching CA or individuals as needed would be fine. They asked her to try. Ranger and she said - no- that she and her husband were trying to get pregnant. She was then accused of not thinking of this historic moment to do something for her sex (by a female AF colonel). She said she told them it was attitudes like that that pretty much guaranteed that smart females like her would not stay in the military- that integrity and honesty are not true values in today's military. She said they dismissed her at that point...

To me equality - treating everyone the same- and military effectiveness have never been goals. It's always been a liberal agenda to get more women generals and colonels and break the male combat culture with the theory being that would result in less war, rape, domestic abuse, and murder . If they kill football then the same groups would be just as happy...

Mills
10-13-2014, 08:03
A female Psyop captain I know told me she has been up to DC to talk to the powers that be on this issue as a part of a group call for candidates . She is already ARSOF and runs marathons- so she seemed a natural to go Ranger or SF. She told them she thought the whole thing was a dumb idea- that women wouldn't improve the tactical ability of any combat unit except maybe in a very few cases - and attaching CA or individuals as needed would be fine. They asked her to try. Ranger and she said - no- that she and her husband were trying to get pregnant. She was then accused of not thinking of this historic moment to do something for her sex (by a female AF colonel). She said she told them it was attitudes like that that pretty much guaranteed that smart females like her would not stay in the military- that integrity and honesty are not true values in today's military. She said they dismissed her at that point...

To me equality - treating everyone the same- and military effectiveness have never been goals. It's always been a liberal agenda to get more women generals and colonels and break the male combat culture with the theory being that would result in less war, rape, domestic abuse, and murder . If they kill football then the same groups would be just as happy...

Interesting story.

Too bad we don't hear more about things like that in the MSM. That is what it will actually take in order to stop this, because I am willing to bet that the general public has no idea that this whole kangaroo court is taking place behind the scenes.

Not to mention the second and third order effects of policy implementation.

Just to throw it out there, has anyone written their Congressional Representative in regards to this issue?

MtnGoat
10-14-2014, 06:54
A female Psyop captain I know told me she has been up to DC to talk to the powers that be on this issue as a part of a group call for candidates . She is already ARSOF and runs marathons- so she seemed a natural to go Ranger or SF. She told them she thought the whole thing was a dumb idea- that women wouldn't improve the tactical ability of any combat unit except maybe in a very few cases - and attaching CA or individuals as needed would be fine. They asked her to try. Ranger and she said - no- that she and her husband were trying to get pregnant. She was then accused of not thinking of this historic moment to do something for her sex (by a female AF colonel). She said she told them it was attitudes like that that pretty much guaranteed that smart females like her would not stay in the military- that integrity and honesty are not true values in today's military. She said they dismissed her at that point...

To me equality - treating everyone the same- and military effectiveness have never been goals. It's always been a liberal agenda to get more women generals and colonels and break the male combat culture with the theory being that would result in less war, rape, domestic abuse, and murder . If they kill football then the same groups would be just as happy...
Of Course the higher to be would call her out and say she isn't what the Army or Military needs. She didn't go along with what they are wanting to do. Just like that CA/CST Female that wrote that SOFREP article over how women impact the ODA life. She said man and women impact on the ODA isn't what is needed on a ODA. Congress, DAHQ and MSM are all clueless and our military is full of spineless bastards.

sinjefe
10-14-2014, 07:29
Of Course the higher to be would call her out and say she isn't what the Army or Military needs. She didn't go along with what they are wanting to do. Just like that CA/CST Female that wrote that SOFREP article over how women impact the ODA life. She said man and women impact on the ODA isn't what is needed on a ODA. Congress, DAHQ and MSM are all clueless and our military is full of spineless bastards.

You're just a Neanderthal. At least that is what those self appointed elites will say.

Box
10-14-2014, 07:53
...if I was single and in my 20's I would be gladly supporting women on ODAs.


If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with!

Old Dog New Trick
12-12-2014, 11:08
Apparently putting women on submarines was a bad idea!

12 sailors implicated in submarine shower scandal

Up to a dozen sailors are suspected of viewing secretly recorded videos of their female shipmates undressing in a submarine shower over a period of 10 months, according to a new investigative report obtained by Navy Times. The scandal has marred the Navy's gender integration effort begun four years ago.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/crime/2014/12/11/navy-submarines-women-shower-videos-suspects/20256393/

Box
12-12-2014, 16:50
...ha

The sub scandal is easily spun:

Start an in depth investigation Navy wide to ferret out incidents like this. Early on we can just Chapter 33% of the guilty Sailors from the Navy. Use trumped up charges if needed but a few of them MUST be kicked from the Navy to show that the military simply aint fucking around anymore.

Time the findings of the "investigation" so that the new Secretary of Defense can be in position...
Then so the new SECDEF can show that he is large and in charge we can swiftly and definitively take action- the poor command climate that MUST exist for this type of unacceptable behavior to have occurred in the first place cannot be ignored and the chain of command must be held acocuntable:

Lead Petty Officer for the Division...
...Relieved of Duties

Chief of Boat...
Relieved of Duties

Skipper...
Relieved of Duties

Fire the Executive Officer for good measure.

...then make a speech that the US military isn't a 'boys club' any more. This behavior is simply unacceptable. Leaders at all levels must be held accountable.
For good measure and visual impact, the families of the female Sailors that had their privacy invaded will be in the background with a special apology to American families for the behavior of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen service wide.
America deserves an apology for the way the military has treated female troops during the tenure of previous Defense Secretaries.
This is real, and the new SecDef is gonna take point !!!!
We WILL eliminate gender discrimination in the military forever.


Then, once the smoke clears, the guys that got fired can all write books about the dark politics of gender integration and how they got railroaded out of service.

Everyone lives happily ever after.


Easy day.
What else do you got for me to spin?

Old Dog New Trick
12-12-2014, 18:24
Billy,

You forgot to add that a woman should be appointed and swiftly confirmed in the senate as the next Secretary of the Navy.

Maybe even one that started life as a man. At least according to the current Secretary of the Air Force.

Box
12-12-2014, 18:45
Billy,

You forgot to add that a woman should be appointed and swiftly confirmed in the senate as the next Secretary of the Navy.

Maybe even one that started life as a man. At least according to the current Secretary of the Air Force.


..one step at a time.
We can't do everything all at once; it throws off the effectiveness of Overton's Window.

Richard
12-12-2014, 20:10
Apparently putting women on submarines was a bad idea!

How so?

Richard

Old Dog New Trick
12-12-2014, 21:23
How so?

Richard

It only increased the moral of twelve sailors.

:p

But seriously, it probably caused distraction and has now led to a compromise in integrity and the cohesion of many. Where distrust for that reason and in that place hasn't existed since the H. L. Hunley was launched.

Created a problem where one had not previously existed. Question would be did those few women perform their jobs equally as well as the men they replaced or did they only create more work and a new command issue?

I'm not against women in the service and feel there are many jobs and positions where their impact on readiness and mission accomplishment is not compromised simply based on sex.

tom kelly
12-13-2014, 15:34
During WWII The Russian Red Army employed "woman" as sniper's against the Germans engaged in the battle for Odessa,and other engagements along the Eastern Front, Russian woman sniper's were effective in the 6 month long battle against the Germans at Sevastopol, One woman using a Russian Mosin-Nagant with a PU scope was credited with 309 kills. Of the 2,000 Russian woman sniper's only 500 survived the war, she was one of the survivors who visited the USA met President Roosevelt toured Canada and England. She returned to Russia studied and taught History until her death at age 58 in 1974.

The Reaper
12-13-2014, 15:43
The Russians were desperate and their backs were against the wall in WW II.

An urban sniper (or even an entrenched one) does not necessarily have the physical requirements that infantrymen or SF soldiers do.

TR

WarriorDiplomat
12-14-2014, 17:01
The Russians were desperate and their backs were against the wall in WW II.

An urban sniper (or even an entrenched one) does not necessarily have the physical requirements that infantrymen or SF soldiers do.

TR


Absolutely correct TR, a 4 lb trigger squueze is not remotely close to the physical rigors of infantry type operations. The circumstances were much different and every country that used women to some success were countries forced into it through unique circumstances. Even the world of spies used women as in the infamous ratlines were out of necessity and circumstances not design. When countries want to project their power and must design this tactic they put their most impressive specimens into the spotlight in essence a ruse. In countries where the prospect of war is reality the image of the enemy can make all the difference in the world to whether or not the people will support the effort aggressively or reluctantly if at all.

As you have said before we drink this Kool aid the circumstances were in reality that we are talking about layers from the best, strongest, fittest soldiers available and were so dilapidated they were FORCED to use anyone who could pull a trigger. By the time this happened the enemy was dilapidated as well. Had the Russian military at that time used women in an equal role from the beginning the Russians would IMO been annihilated worse than they already were and the Germans would have owned Stalingrad instead of losing through attrition.