Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

1246715

Posts

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I have a question.

    When someone -is- wounded and there's lead flying through the air (or what have you) what are the standard operating procedures. Is someone expected to run out into the storm of bullets risking their life for a comrade who might very well have taken a fatal shot and just not have passed yet?

    Because so far the arguments against the "have to carry x amount of weight for y amount of time" has all been about wounded comrades. I apologize if anyone who has served here has a nasty memory brought up by this question.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    Everyone talking about the standards needing reevaluation, but what if given our current focus on light infantry combat in hot/mountainous/logistically isolated areas means we need to adjust the standards up?

    Everyone would be fine with them increasing them as well right?

    That would be unfortunate but acceptable. You'd have to account for the loss in man(woman)power, but if the math works then given the military political climate, that's how it's gonna be.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The military relaxes standards when they start having a hard time getting enough suitable recruits.

    No reason to do so until then.

    Reducing the weight that the soldiers carry is something that should be done to reduce the weight that the soldiers carry.

    Much better to reduce the requirement but not reduce the gear load and leave the grunts at the bottom to figure something out.

    They're used to shit rolling downhill so it will be fine. And if it isn't, well, there's plenty of people to blame.

    This sounds like a great premise for a Military Academy movie.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    I'm not sure everyone knows what standards they are talking about, or have good information on the pass rate by gender.

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The military relaxes standards when they start having a hard time getting enough suitable recruits.

    No reason to do so until then.

    Reducing the weight that the soldiers carry is something that should be done to reduce the weight that the soldiers carry.

    The drop in recruitment numbers due to Iraq/Afghanistan has led the military to stealthily reduce standards over the last few years, especially when it comes to things like enlisting felons. I think having a broader pool of acceptable candidates will help maintain standards, which has the bonus of reducing issues like infiltration by gang members and skinhead organizations.

    Phillishere on
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I do remember hearing about gang members joining the military and then coming back after their time was up and basically passing along the skills they learned.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    There are tons of soldiers who aren't 6' 200 lb. manly-men.

    What makes you think that the standards are wrong? Because many women won't meet them? Many men don't meet them either.

    It's pretty difficult to see your argument as anything other than a person on the wrong side of the dunning-kruger curve trying to tell the army what is required of soldiers in the field.

    Because the military has a long history of screaming "readiness!" and "standards!" and "morale!" when people start pushing it to make changes that it doesn't want to.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

  • Options
    NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    Give me $650,000 and I'll do it in 4 years.

    This reevaluation of standards has been happening already.

    That's what started the new PRT program, and the correct condemnation of injurious training methods like hundreds of pushups and situps, and that the 1 mile run is a better measure of fitness than 2 mile (only for the SMA at the time to say that the extra mile, even though it has no benefit and with Army training practices a lot of negatives, is to test "heart").

    The problem is this: How do you test the standard in a reasonable amount of time for a 120+ pax company? A seven event APFT (if we are using the Army as an example, because that is the branch I was in) would be an all day event. The current APFT (push ups for time, sit ups for time, 2 mile run) can be done in about the same time frame as normal PT. So not only is there so much institutional inertia against change, but you're asking to implement something that takes even more time out of the unit's day. It's the same reason why MACP, and most military combatives for that matter, are generally garbage with regards to actually fighting.

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I do remember hearing about gang members joining the military and then coming back after their time was up and basically passing along the skills they learned.

    Yup. That's an issue.

    Another big one is the military purposefully recalling soldiers that have been diagnosed with PTSD for another tour.

  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    Me neither. But apparently now that women can enter combat roles, what they can carry is suddenly suspect.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The military relaxes standards when they start having a hard time getting enough suitable recruits.

    No reason to do so until then.

    Reducing the weight that the soldiers carry is something that should be done to reduce the weight that the soldiers carry.

    The drop in recruitment numbers due to Iraq/Afghanistan has led the military to stealthily reduce standards over the last few years, especially when it comes to things like enlisting felons. I think having a broader pool of acceptable candidates will help maintain standards, which has the bonus of reducing issues like infiltration by gang members and skinhead organizations.

    We're only talking about physical fitness standards

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    There are tons of soldiers who aren't 6' 200 lb. manly-men.

    What makes you think that the standards are wrong? Because many women won't meet them? Many men don't meet them either.

    It's pretty difficult to see your argument as anything other than a person on the wrong side of the dunning-kruger curve trying to tell the army what is required of soldiers in the field.

    Because the military has a long history of screaming "readiness!" and "standards!" and "morale!" when people start pushing it to make changes that it doesn't want to.

    They do have a habit of screaming those things. It doesn't make those thing unimportant. I'm personally fine with diversity. I just don't consider it an end goal. The end goal is "more of them dead, less of us dead, objectives achieved."

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    Give me $650,000 and I'll do it in 4 years.

    This reevaluation of standards has been happening already.

    That's what started the new PRT program, and the correct condemnation of injurious training methods like hundreds of pushups and situps, and that the 1 mile run is a better measure of fitness than 2 mile (only for the SMA at the time to say that the extra mile, even though it has no benefit and with Army training practices a lot of negatives, is to test "heart").

    The problem is this: How do you test the standard in a reasonable amount of time for a 120+ pax company? A seven event APFT (if we are using the Army as an example, because that is the branch I was in) would be an all day event. The current APFT (push ups for time, sit ups for time, 2 mile run) can be done in about the same time frame as normal PT. So not only is there so much institutional inertia against change, but you're asking to implement something that takes even more time out of the unit's day. It's the same reason why MACP, and most military combatives for that matter, are generally garbage with regards to actually fighting.

    Here's the thing - if these assessments are as important as people are saying, then taking a day to run them is absolutely reasonable.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

  • Options
    NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    Give me $650,000 and I'll do it in 4 years.

    This reevaluation of standards has been happening already.

    That's what started the new PRT program, and the correct condemnation of injurious training methods like hundreds of pushups and situps, and that the 1 mile run is a better measure of fitness than 2 mile (only for the SMA at the time to say that the extra mile, even though it has no benefit and with Army training practices a lot of negatives, is to test "heart").

    The problem is this: How do you test the standard in a reasonable amount of time for a 120+ pax company? A seven event APFT (if we are using the Army as an example, because that is the branch I was in) would be an all day event. The current APFT (push ups for time, sit ups for time, 2 mile run) can be done in about the same time frame as normal PT. So not only is there so much institutional inertia against change, but you're asking to implement something that takes even more time out of the unit's day. It's the same reason why MACP, and most military combatives for that matter, are generally garbage with regards to actually fighting.

    Here's the thing - if these assessments are as important as people are saying, then taking a day to run them is absolutely reasonable.

    Good luck convincing leadership of that when they have staff meetings, training meetings, operations meetings, motor pool maintenance, individual training, MOS training, range events, arms room pulls for weapons maintenance etc. while fitting in personal hygiene (after PT) and meals.

    A multi event APFT with better events (pull ups, 1 mile run, shuttle run, ammo can carry, sled pull etc.) would be great, I would personally have preferred it over a running on concrete all day, but you're arguing for more time to be taken out of the day for a unit that could be spent doing other things. And then throw TRADOC into that too.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    And that is a perfect example of what I was saying before. Since you didn't have to design gear for women, no consideration was made for physiological differences. So when the gear winds up tearing women apart because it incorrectly loads their bodies, or doesn't protect them as well because it doesn't fit right, this becomes "justification" that women aren't as capable, because they're fighting their own equipment.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    Yeah, that's not a womans skeleton being different, that's military training just shattering skeletons in general. There's a reason they call Motrin "infantry candy."

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Trace on
  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    No, what he's saying is that the Army and Marines are doing research right now because male versus female bone density is a problem.

    The articles you mentioned were from the Military Times, Janes, and WaPo's .mil writer. They pulled a lot of data from the recent Ranger trials and the Marines' special investigation into adding women into the training class.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    Yeah, that's not a womans skeleton being different, that's military training just shattering skeletons in general. There's a reason they call Motrin "infantry candy."

    ...and people wonder why soldiers and vets have issues with substance abuse.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    No, what he's saying is that the Army and Marines are doing research right now because male versus female bone density is a problem.

    The articles you mentioned were from the Military Times, Janes, and WaPo's .mil writer. They pulled a lot of data from the recent Ranger trials and the Marines' special investigation into adding women into the training class.

    oh I doubt the marines are trying really hard.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/

  • Options
    ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    Give me $650,000 and I'll do it in 4 years.

    This reevaluation of standards has been happening already.

    That's what started the new PRT program, and the correct condemnation of injurious training methods like hundreds of pushups and situps, and that the 1 mile run is a better measure of fitness than 2 mile (only for the SMA at the time to say that the extra mile, even though it has no benefit and with Army training practices a lot of negatives, is to test "heart").

    The problem is this: How do you test the standard in a reasonable amount of time for a 120+ pax company? A seven event APFT (if we are using the Army as an example, because that is the branch I was in) would be an all day event. The current APFT (push ups for time, sit ups for time, 2 mile run) can be done in about the same time frame as normal PT. So not only is there so much institutional inertia against change, but you're asking to implement something that takes even more time out of the unit's day. It's the same reason why MACP, and most military combatives for that matter, are generally garbage with regards to actually fighting.

    That's the problem with studies - proper evaluation takes a while. If I had an inkling that the army could stand less intensive training, if set up a study with a truncated APFT with strict criteria for non-inferiority. That way, the large number of participants would actually work for me, since I'd need high power.

    But if people are already on the case looks like the stats may change for the better without further interference.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    I'm sure our defense budget could spare the money.

  • Options
    NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Giving him and Hedgie and company the benefit of the doubt, a more generous phrasing would be "Are 100lb kits necessary?"

    @programjunkie broke it down earlier and said all of that kit was necessary to be on his person.

    Okay, well, then "Is there a way that guys don't have to ruck with 100lb kits?"

    Well that's a logistics question. Maybe? Depends on how good logistics in that area is. Even if there is a solution to that question, is it worth employing it?

    If there are already enough men who can pass the standards - and those standards come with the prima facie case that they're tied to effectiveness and not some kind of animus to keep women out, given that there are many men who can't pass them and those standards were designed prior to women being permitted in combat MOS anyways, as @Regina Fong noted - why lower the standards?

    If women can pass the current combat MOS standards and want to join a combat MOS unit, that's awesome. Some people have voiced problems related to whether a "critical mass" of women a la college Affirmative Action cases will be able to pass the standards. That's an unsolved problem, though, and it intersects with the weight discussion above.

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    No, what he's saying is that the Army and Marines are doing research right now because male versus female bone density is a problem.

    The articles you mentioned were from the Military Times, Janes, and WaPo's .mil writer. They pulled a lot of data from the recent Ranger trials and the Marines' special investigation into adding women into the training class.

    oh I doubt the marines are trying really hard.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/

    I don't know what kind of proof would satisfy you and/or Hedgie. If MIT ran it instead and came up with similar conclusions would you be satisfied?

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    I carried more than many infantry (not including anyone with alternative/extra weapons like 240B's). A couple women did too. But, like I am advocating, my platoon was not an open door, every female was personally vetted by the First Sergeant (highest ranking NCO at the company level) as to physical ability, and we still moved both men and women away who were non-hackers.

    And honestly, most training loads are lighter than combat loads. Especially road marches. The pre-Ranger training guide is 35 lbs ruck sack IIRC, which is a load designed to be safe and carried quickly, but is not even slightly representative of combat loads. Full combat loads are legitimately dangerous in terms of minor to moderate injuries, but are less dangerous than IEDs, or not having water when it is 140 F outside, so we carry the weight. Training needs to get as close as possible (going from 35 lbs to 100 lbs is undoable) without being dangerous.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    Moreover, with the special case of special operations units, there's only a limited number of billets (as opposed to line combat MOSes), and PJ put out a good argument earlier in the thread about expected return on investments for the army in terms of assigning billets for those trainings. I don't think anyone has touched on that, yet.

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    No, what he's saying is that the Army and Marines are doing research right now because male versus female bone density is a problem.

    The articles you mentioned were from the Military Times, Janes, and WaPo's .mil writer. They pulled a lot of data from the recent Ranger trials and the Marines' special investigation into adding women into the training class.

    oh I doubt the marines are trying really hard.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/

    I don't know what kind of proof would satisfy you and/or Hedgie. If MIT ran it instead and came up with similar conclusions would you be satisfied?

    The Marine Corps has been the most vocal opponent of allowing women to serve in combat. As was pointed out, the current Chair of the JCS is a Marine, and refused to attend the announcement yesterday. So it's not exactly unreasonable to say that the Marines might not be the most objective of observers.

    So yes, having non-affiliated parties involved would go a long way towards making me feel like the tests are objective.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    no but there is a design that is surely more suitable for women and men than one that sucks at its job.

Sign In or Register to comment.