The winners.

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

Joker,

Amen Brother! Very well said.:lifter

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!

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

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).

There you go! Always thinking. :lifter

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.

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.

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

:lifter :lifterWHAT HE SAID!!!

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!!

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.

Well, well
 

Mediocrity is the new "high standard'

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.

And now I collect em. Go figure.:D

18ZULU - 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. :)

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.

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.

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

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.

Negative. I got it in an email.

TR

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/articl...html?nopager=1

Well...

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Okay, that makes sense. I was wondering about that first post it seemed "disconnected.";)

I see the next two women failed to pass the USMC Infantry Officer Course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-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

Reaper,

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

http://www.examiner.com/article/mari...d-on-first-day

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

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.

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...fficer-course/

MM, do not confuse the issue of political ineptness and ignorance with the issue of our sisters in combat, two entirely different points.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

Including the purse? :munchin

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