The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[split] Uppity wimminz with guns?

124»

Posts

  • edited July 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    My example was not ambiguous, if we're talking about Jessica Lynch. If you can't understand that I'm just going to goddamn drop it with you.

    But yeah making me go back and dig up what Zal said got me thinking. Specifically about when he said you should be the one in charge of this since.

    So I'm laying in bed trying to go to sleep and I'm thinking "goddamn it silicon what would you do if some colonels showed up on your doorstep and gave you sweeping powers to make this happen after these wars are dealt with." Because the middle of a damn war (or two!) is no place to try out social experiments.

    Anyway, so this is Brigadier General Silicon's plan for successfully integrating the combat arms.

    1) Apply physical standards equally across the board, and enforce them. That means eliminating the different scale on the APFT in addition to making sure that women who come into units where heavy lifting is a priority (hello artillerists and tankers!) aren't shoehorned away or around these jobs. Which leads into my second point!

    2) Women follow the same career progression as men. For instance, if a woman is assigned to a 240B squad, she better start at ammo bearer, lugging around 2000 rounds and a tripod from hell. Ditto for tankers, cause when they move up from drivers they become loaders, and those tank rounds are not light. If you can't hack it you become needs of the Army like anyone else.

    3) By God if you are an infantryman you are not going to push papers. What does this mean? If you go to an infantry company you're going to be an infantryman, not go to the training room and look pretty for people while you're pushing papers, or go up to the Battalion HQ and look pretty up there getting coffee for the Colonel and the Sergeant Major.

    4) If I catch you fraternizing I'm crushing everyone's balls. Seriously. This is such a major fucking morale issue in the support units where people are fucking other people and no one wants to touch the situation. If you can't keep your hands off each other go be a damned cook or an admin clerk or something. Have some self discipline and remember your bearing. This goes both ways - don't be trying to suck up to a girl so you can share body heat later on, and don't be swinging your hips because you want some dude to carry your load.

    5) This shit stays under the fucking radar. I don't want anyone to know about this shit in the media. I don't want fucking puff pieces about how special these women are, I don't want interviews with pictures of them acting tough and grimey with cutesy titles and puns. I want them to be like every other soldier who signed up for combat arms. I hear someone from a news service use the words "pioneering" "hero" or "Rosa Parks" and by God I am kicking their parent station out of the Pentagon for the next ten years. You can report that the Army has made alliances with the Dragons of the Moon for all I give a fuck, you're not going to put a spotlight on this nonsense. Civilians getting the wrong idea about this shit from BOTH ends of the political spectrum is the worst fucking thing that could happen outside of a woman getting gang raped in the field by her squad. These women will NOT be your political footballs.

    6) I'm going to put CID (Criminal Investigation Division) agents in your units to make sure you're doing the right thing and that there's no shenanigans going on in the companies their assigned to. Futhermore they also have the power to arrest any nosy ass reporters, so hooray for that.

    Anything I need to clear up, or have I gotten the gist across? Five would be my especial priority, because that is honestly my biggest worry and what I think would be the source of the majority of the problems that would be encountered. If they did put me in charge of this I would be up half the night with a goddamn ulcer thinking about what's going to happen when it eventually gets out and I'm going to turn on the news or read blogs about how the military is getting "watered down" and our standards are going out the damn door, or about how brave and heroic and pioneering and totally these women are, along with how Gen. Silicon is not doing enough for them and there's not enough female leadership and STEPS need to be taken to fix this complete lack of female combat arms leadership and oh holy fuck I'm spitting up blood again.

    Then I have to go testify in front of the Senate Defense Committee and I'm going to have Senator Biden looking down at me like "WTF General, my constituents say you're a goddamn asshole because you're not promoting women fast enough." And then his right wing counterpart is all "WTF General, why are you putting our servicemen and women at risk by putting unqualified personel in combat positions and exposing them to rape and death and even rape after death."

    And why are they doing this? Because all of a sudden its become a political issue because some asshole PR LT thought it'd be a great idea to have the news media and have them report on this shit, ignoring the crushing effect it has on morale across the damn Army. So, that's why Rule #5 is in effect.

    siliconenhanced on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanks Cat, you put it clearer than I did.

    And its alright Elec. I didn't go punch a kitten going "GODDAMN AUSSIE" everytime, so you don't have anything to sweat.

    siliconenhanced on
  • edited July 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    First of all (from my accurately described non-military background) - it seems solid.

    Secondly: Sorry for making a poor assumption about you.

    But thirdly, a question:
    5) This shit stays under the fucking radar. I don't want anyone to know about this shit in the media. I don't want fucking puff pieces about how special these women are, I don't want interviews with pictures of them acting tough and grimey with cutesy titles and puns. I want them to be like every other soldier who signed up for combat arms. I hear someone from a news service use the words "pioneering" "hero" or "Rosa Parks" and by God I am kicking their parent station out of the Pentagon for the next ten years. You can report that the Army has made alliances with the Dragons of the Moon for all I give a fuck, you're not going to put a spotlight on this nonsense. Civilians getting the wrong idea about this shit from BOTH ends of the political spectrum is the worst fucking thing that could happen outside of a woman getting gang raped in the field by her squad. These women will NOT be your political footballs.

    Would I be reading you right in thinking that basically this mandates introducing the program under almost complete secrecy, and do you think that's feasible?

    I get the point of it, but you'd have to kill off things like the embedded reporters to leverage this sort of control when you've got FOX news running around looking for a common denominator.

    Well, for one thing these women would be on the base, training, so there really wouldn't be a place for the "embedded reporter" angle. Like I said, fighting in the middle of two wars isn't the place for this sort of thing.

    Secondly, I'd make sure every PR lieutenant and anyone else who was responsible would know, via phone call from me, that I'd personally have their balls, from Private to Post Commander, if they spilled the beans on this and invited news crews onto the base to film them running through an obstacle course, shooting their rifles, and doing other "Army" tasks.

    I mean yeah, I'd like complete secrecy but let's face it, not going to happen. I just don't want the company to walk into the day room and have Private Tina's face on the screen while some reporter is telling her how totally awesome and cool and neato and how she's making history. Eventually they're going to get tired of running interviews with people's families and having me tell them to go away, plus there's the entire "Hey you want to sneak on a military base to try and get a scoop! Its called national security! Here's 30 days in the stockade, asshole!"

    I can't stress to you enough how important that part would be. Preventing the first group of women from becoming a goddamn media circus would take all my power I could muster, and it still might not be enough, but it would pretty much lead to failure if I couldn't prevent it.

    siliconenhanced on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Makes sense. The only other stuff I have concerns about are on the ground issues like adequate lighting and personal security around sleeping areas and bathroom facilities.

    Oh, and recruitment stuff. Quit signing up psycho ex-cons and retarded trailer trash just because normal people doesn't want to join so much any more, god damnit. Thing is, you really need the civilian leadership not going to war over stupid things that the population doesn't want in order for that to be okay.

    So hey, tangential question: what's the reasoning behind the current male physical requirements? Why X number of pushups and not Y, why pushups and not chinups, is there a balance test and such, are these requirements arrived at through a logical assessment of what a soldier will need to do or is it more of a 'we've always done it this way' thing? I really have no idea, and it seems to me that its possible that the minimum standards could be too high, or even too low. More likely too low than too high, of course, but yeah. I'm curious.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • edited July 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Makes sense. The only other stuff I have concerns about are on the ground issues like adequate lighting and personal security around sleeping areas and bathroom facilities.

    Oh, and recruitment stuff. Quit signing up psycho ex-cons and retarded trailer trash just because normal people doesn't want to join so much any more, god damnit. Thing is, you really need the civilian leadership not going to war over stupid things that the population doesn't want in order for that to be okay.

    So hey, tangential question: what's the reasoning behind the current male physical requirements? Why X number of pushups and not Y, why pushups and not chinups, is there a balance test and such, are these requirements arrived at through a logical assessment of what a soldier will need to do or is it more of a 'we've always done it this way' thing? I really have no idea, and it seems to me that its possible that the minimum standards could be too high, or even too low. More likely too low than too high, of course, but yeah. I'm curious.

    Amazingly enough, and I don't mean that sarcastically, females and males live in the same buildings in support units, so I don't see why that would have to change with combat arms, and since most barracks nowadays have rooms with their own bathroom, that wouldn't be so much of an issue. Hell, when I got back from Iraq I was living with females in the same building, and no one got raped. Hooray Army! Generally you just make sure the Charge of Quarters (CQ) Sergeant is responsible, which he should be doing anyway, and making sure no one is raping anyone or stuff.

    Hell, if I could do that I would, as far as keeping out the goddamn retards who shouldn't be allowed to breathe, let alone taught to kill. The problem is the Army I joined is not the same Army I left. The caliber of recruit is fucking pathetic, and I say that with all honesty. That was one of my reasons for getting out, is that I could no longer trust the person to my left and right.

    As far as the physical requirements go, its pretty much you're scoring within a certain percentile. For example, 42 push ups is in the 60th percentile of what the average male who's 17-21 (age wise) scores, so that's the reason why. 53 sit ups is the 60th percentile, as is the 15:56 run. There's some issues with this as well, mainly with the run portion, since you don't really run two miles in combat, and its more supposed to be a gauge of cardiovascular strength. There's been some talk of replacing it with a short road march followed by a sprint, to better gauge what really happens in combat and how you would react, but I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

    I suppose it's also reasonable from a morale/acceptance perspective in other units, which judging from your posts is potentially a huge issue (i.e. rightly so at the moment, but clearly that's going to carry over till some point in the future when it becomes clear the old beurocracy isn't involved).

    Yeah, from my own experiences one of the things that quickly alienated someone against the idea of females serving period was seeing puff pieces about how totally awesome these women were for doing the job that we did, even though they didn't even do that. I'm trying to nip that in the bud. I don't want it to be
    This is PVT Tina Martinez, a brave new pioneer, one of the first female infantrywomen in US Army history. This is PVT Martinez climbing a rope. This is PVT Martinez shooting a rifle. This is PVT Martinez doing PT. PVT Martinez is a better shot then some of the men in her company and a better runner then most of them as well!

    If I was in charge shit like that would keep me up at night, because PVT Martinez might be a great shot with her rifle but has problems controlling the machine gun she works on as well. She might be a great runner, but regularly falls out in ruck marches. So you've got guys who see this and wonder "why the fuck is she so special" and then all hell breaks loose. So because of an angle a reporter wanted, PVT Martinez is no longer really part of the company, and instead of being just another Private, she's become a spectacle, which I would be trying to work against from the outset. All the hard work, all the little things she had to struggle for are gone because some asshole wanted a human interest story.

    I'd much rather see
    This is Alpha Company, known as the "Assassins", participating in a training exercise. This is SGT Schimdt, leading his team in a mortar exercise. This is SGT Davenport, calling in fire with his sniper team. This is CPL Kunkel and PVT Martinez, laying down fire with a 240B machine gun. They function excellently as a company, and when interviewed CPL Kunkel said "She's the best AG I've ever had, and I'd want her at my back at anytime." Her platoon sergeant, SFC Araneta, was more balanced. "She's got her rough spots, but she's part of our platoon, through and through."

    Its not perfect, but it gets the point across, making it about how the company functions instead of one person, and also because Kunkel is the one building her up, not some nameless reporter, and he'll have to answer for anything he says, good or bad, and anyone who disagrees with him is going to have to answer to him.

    siliconenhanced on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    As far as the physical requirements go, its pretty much you're scoring within a certain percentile. For example, 42 push ups is in the 60th percentile of what the average male who's 17-21 (age wise) scores, so that's the reason why. 53 sit ups is the 60th percentile, as is the 15:56 run. There's some issues with this as well, mainly with the run portion, since you don't really run two miles in combat, and its more supposed to be a gauge of cardiovascular strength. There's been some talk of replacing it with a short road march followed by a sprint, to better gauge what really happens in combat and how you would react, but I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

    Makes sense, I'd just like to know where that data is drawn from. Do people do studies of average fitness and such?

    I'm also curious about the forms the assessment takes, and that's an interesting point about the run related to this - I mean, you mention being able to lift and carry as a very important skill, but there doesn't seem to be a test where someone goes "here, carry this heavy shit over there and put it down gently". Instead, there's pushups, which are an okay assessor of upper body strength but not so much capacity to lift, which uses different muscle groups. Seems odd.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • NintoNinto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    As far as the physical requirements go, its pretty much you're scoring within a certain percentile. For example, 42 push ups is in the 60th percentile of what the average male who's 17-21 (age wise) scores, so that's the reason why. 53 sit ups is the 60th percentile, as is the 15:56 run. There's some issues with this as well, mainly with the run portion, since you don't really run two miles in combat, and its more supposed to be a gauge of cardiovascular strength. There's been some talk of replacing it with a short road march followed by a sprint, to better gauge what really happens in combat and how you would react, but I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

    Makes sense, I'd just like to know where that data is drawn from. Do people do studies of average fitness and such?

    I'm also curious about the forms the assessment takes, and that's an interesting point about the run related to this - I mean, you mention being able to lift and carry as a very important skill, but there doesn't seem to be a test where someone goes "here, carry this heavy shit over there and put it down gently". Instead, there's pushups, which are an okay assessor of upper body strength but not so much capacity to lift, which uses different muscle groups. Seems odd.

    Pushups don't require equipment, so there's a financial issue at work with this particular test requirement.

    Ninto on
  • edited July 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Ninto wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    As far as the physical requirements go, its pretty much you're scoring within a certain percentile. For example, 42 push ups is in the 60th percentile of what the average male who's 17-21 (age wise) scores, so that's the reason why. 53 sit ups is the 60th percentile, as is the 15:56 run. There's some issues with this as well, mainly with the run portion, since you don't really run two miles in combat, and its more supposed to be a gauge of cardiovascular strength. There's been some talk of replacing it with a short road march followed by a sprint, to better gauge what really happens in combat and how you would react, but I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

    Makes sense, I'd just like to know where that data is drawn from. Do people do studies of average fitness and such?

    I'm also curious about the forms the assessment takes, and that's an interesting point about the run related to this - I mean, you mention being able to lift and carry as a very important skill, but there doesn't seem to be a test where someone goes "here, carry this heavy shit over there and put it down gently". Instead, there's pushups, which are an okay assessor of upper body strength but not so much capacity to lift, which uses different muscle groups. Seems odd.

    Pushups don't require equipment, so there's a financial issue at work with this particular test requirement.

    Pretty much. Imagine its the Army shrugging their shoulders and going "Meh, close enough". When I was coming into the service, they had just discarded PRT (Physical Readiness Training) as the new system, because they said it was too expensive and too time consuming, since it required exercise equipment and someone to "lead" physical training in a platoon or larger setting.

    I have my own issues with how PT was done in the Army. Generally, you'd run into the problem where you do whatever whoever is running PT is good at. For example, one time I had a section sergeant who was an alright runner and could do lower body, so all we did was run five miles every other day in Afghanistan (M/W/F) and then do 20 minutes of lower body. On the other hand, my next section sergeant hated running, so all we did was go to the gym and lift weight. HOWEVER, my squad leader hated lifting weights or doing anything really, but was an alright runner, so all we did was run when he was in charge.

    You've got places like Ft. Bragg where there's a mentality in place that if you're NOT running 10-15 miles over the course of a week, you're a lazy sonofabitch, ignoring all science that says that shit is bad for you. Mainly its because people in charge don't feel like taking the time to make an actual, challenging PT scheduel, and so everyone suffers when PT test time comes around.

    When I was making PT scheduels, I tried to change that attitude, and it went something like this during the winter in Alaska:

    Monday: Warm Up Day (9-10min /mile jog for 1 mile, 15 min of sprints, upper body circuit/lower body circuit)
    Tuesday: Gym (Triceps/Chest)
    Wednesday: Gym (Cardiovascular Machine - 30 minutes on moderate diff setting. Swimming)
    Thursday: Gym (Back/Biceps)
    Friday: Basement (Lower Body)

    Something that would mix things up a bit. Usually you'd see Running/5 MI 7 min pace from Monday to Friday, with some pushups/situps thrown in when they got back. If they would take the time to go ahead and try to balance out PT instead of making it a goddamn mess like it is, I think that they could cut down on a lot of the injuries and what have you that people end up suffering.

    siliconenhanced on
  • NintoNinto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    When I was making PT scheduels, I tried to change that attitude, and it went something like this during the winter in Alaska:

    Monday: Warm Up Day (9-10min /mile jog for 1 mile, 15 min of sprints, upper body circuit/lower body circuit)
    Tuesday: Gym (Triceps/Chest)
    Wednesday: Gym (Cardiovascular Machine - 30 minutes on moderate diff setting. Swimming)
    Thursday: Gym (Back/Biceps)
    Friday: Basement (Lower Body)

    Something that would mix things up a bit. Usually you'd see Running/5 MI 7 min pace from Monday to Friday, with some pushups/situps thrown in when they got back. If they would take the time to go ahead and try to balance out PT instead of making it a goddamn mess like it is, I think that they could cut down on a lot of the injuries and what have you that people end up suffering.

    Wanna make it easy? If you have an internet connection, just do the workout of the day from crossfit.


    edit: to make this topical, they have excellent guides on how to adjust workout programs for typical female physiology.

    Ninto on
  • FawkesFawkes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Any of those PT routines look a bit idiotic Silicon. Don't you do battle PT, tabs and such as part of routine, anything that keeps you prepared for actual phys in the field?

    I've heard from various sources that US forces tend to focus more (ie way too much) on weights, gym & general strength exercises, and that seems to back it up. Same for crossfit, I'm sure it's good for overall muscle fitness, but it doesn't do anywhere near enough proper aerobic stuff. I don't really see what either has to do with the ability to move long distances with kit at speed and then fight at the end, or sprint / dash / crawl carrying 50 pounds and a weapon in fire & maneuver for extended periods during section attacks and the like. Helps with ammo resupply, moving casualties, moving HW and such I can see, but that's not really the majority of the job, is it.

    The warm-up day you posted as part of your schedule is the closest thing I'd see to good military PT. Nice Para one we used to do was 2 mile 8-min mile warmup, 20 mins sprints, firemans carries etc up a 50m slope & down again, 2 mile warmdown. Also, standard circuits for 45 minutes involving all-round bodyweight circuits with sprints inbetween, plus various crawls, firemans carry & team exercises to keep it interesting. Battle PT would be similar, except in fighting order with helmet & webbing (30 pounds approx), boots, rougher terrain, and working stress positions into the phys (ie hill sprints holding weapon above head). Might sound medieval, but that's the point - so is being in the field.

    Also, 10-15 miles per week really is fuck all if you are as fit as you should be for an infantry soldier. It's three easy 5-mile runs in a week or less, a bit worrying that people have issues with that.

    Fawkes on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    PT is basic entry level stuff. Once you get to training they do the "march 10 miles with a 60 pound pack on" and such.

    nexuscrawler on
  • FawkesFawkes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Oh, I also agree that pressups, situps, and how fast you can run 1.5 miles in trainers has fuck all to do with it, but all our infantry demand that as the entry qualification, not the real test. Certainly for the reg, when I did my infantryman's course, they didn't even bother with the pressups & situps technically required by the rules, but they certainly paid attention to who kept up after 3 days in the field, no sleep, pissing it down, running a 2k extraction with 55 pounds + weapon over rough marshland & up a fuckoff big hill.

    Fawkes on
  • FawkesFawkes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    PT is basic entry level stuff. Once you get to training they do the "march 10 miles with a 60 pound pack on" and such.

    Pretty sure Sillicon was talking about PT for trained soldiers are already in.

    Fawkes on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Ninto wrote: »
    Pushups don't require equipment, so there's a financial issue at work with this particular test requirement.

    Man, I'm pretty sure even the army can manage to throw a half-dozen bricks into a backpack. That's pretty weaksauce.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Makes sense, I'd just like to know where that data is drawn from. Do people do studies of average fitness and such?

    I'm also curious about the forms the assessment takes, and that's an interesting point about the run related to this - I mean, you mention being able to lift and carry as a very important skill, but there doesn't seem to be a test where someone goes "here, carry this heavy shit over there and put it down gently". Instead, there's pushups, which are an okay assessor of upper body strength but not so much capacity to lift, which uses different muscle groups. Seems odd.
    I'd actually not be surprised if there are common tasks tests that might measure this, though I can't think of any off the top of my head. And in theory I believe every soldier has to pass these to be deployable...things like putting on a gas mask in a given amount of time, evaluating a casualty, etc.

    I know that some MOS specific ones measure lifting strength...for instance for 19K's (tank crewmember) you have to be able to toss a round within a given time (6 seconds if I remember correctly). And the rounds aren't exactly light.

    Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Timing common tasks seems like it'd be the most focused way to identify problem areas. And honestly, Fawkes is right about the running.

    I do wonder how that extra training balances out in terms of needing extra food and water. If you build a crapton of muscle and speed your metabolism, you have to eat a lot more. You're safe on base, but in the field with limited supplies it seems like there could be a problem. Unless I'm taking out my ass and the difference isn't that big :P

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fawkes wrote: »
    Any of those PT routines look a bit idiotic Silicon. Don't you do battle PT, tabs and such as part of routine, anything that keeps you prepared for actual phys in the field?

    I've heard from various sources that US forces tend to focus more (ie way too much) on weights, gym & general strength exercises, and that seems to back it up. Same for crossfit, I'm sure it's good for overall muscle fitness, but it doesn't do anywhere near enough proper aerobic stuff. I don't really see what either has to do with the ability to move long distances with kit at speed and then fight at the end, or sprint / dash / crawl carrying 50 pounds and a weapon in fire & maneuver for extended periods during section attacks and the like. Helps with ammo resupply, moving casualties, moving HW and such I can see, but that's not really the majority of the job, is it.

    It seems counterintuitive, but it is that way for a reason. If all you throw at the body is what is done in the field, your body will grow to adapt to those sets of actions and then stop progressing. You end up strong enough to do all that (which is mostly belabored cardio), but no stronger. The truth is sometimes you have to push someone very heavy off of you, a strength you could improve continually through an increasingly difficult bench press routine, but that action is difficult to improve strength on when only using battle maneuvers. Weight routines like the 3-day split already described work to always increase the challenge level for each major muscle group above that which is required to carry gear, fight, run, jump, etc.

    It never hurts to be as strong as you can be in the field, and I think it is reasonable to believe that strength training programs will make more capable soldiers than those that merely train to match the job requirements and no more.
    Fawkes wrote: »
    Also, 10-15 miles per week really is fuck all if you are as fit as you should be for an infantry soldier. It's three easy 5-mile runs in a week or less, a bit worrying that people have issues with that.

    I agree. I do what I consider to be low intensity cardio, and that works out to jogging about 3.5 miles 5 days a week.

    WorLord on
    ...privately black.
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I do wonder how that extra training balances out in terms of needing extra food and water. If you build a crapton of muscle and speed your metabolism, you have to eat a lot more. You're safe on base, but in the field with limited supplies it seems like there could be a problem. Unless I'm taking out my ass and the difference isn't that big :P

    ITs not so much that you eat a LOT more, but you do have to eat it more often. I mean, yeah, a bit more, but not as much as you'd think.

    WorLord on
    ...privately black.
  • edited July 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »

    Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Timing common tasks seems like it'd be the most focused way to identify problem areas. And honestly, Fawkes is right about the running.

    I do wonder how that extra training balances out in terms of needing extra food and water. If you build a crapton of muscle and speed your metabolism, you have to eat a lot more. You're safe on base, but in the field with limited supplies it seems like there could be a problem. Unless I'm taking out my ass and the difference isn't that big :P

    As far as carbs, calories, and protein go; one - two MRE's will fill any need your body may have. Well, except taste, in some cases. Damn nasty ass frankfurters. (The chili-mac is outstanding, however))

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Re: Fawkes

    Yeah, Cat was right, I was talking about Soldiers that were already in. And you wouldn't believe how skeptical my 1SG was when I gave it to him.

    "Battle focused" PT tends to be one of those things that goes from unit to unit. It really depends on the charecter of the unit and who's running the show. Of course, a lot of that also has to do with arms rooms procedures (drawing weapons for an unit can take up to an hour), people's attitudes at oh dark thirty, and the fact that most obstacle courses are falling apart thanks to slashed budgets.

    For example, when I was in Alaska, there was a platoon sergeant who liked to ski. So what he did what get his guys decent on skis.

    Then they went to Alyeska National Park for work to ski their asses off and it was written off as a training exercise.

    Cool stories aside about totally awesome platoon sergeants, I highly disagree with your assertiong that running five miles a week thrice a week is something that people should be doing, especially in an Airborne unit that already puts enough stresses on your joints and back as it is. Its part of the reason that you've got guys in their 30s who can't even bend over or get up w/o help, because they spent their youth in places like the 82nd Airborne for 10 years jumping every week and running 20+ miles.

    If anything, I'd say the Army places too much emphasis on the run, and not enough everywhere else, including battle focused PT.

    Edit: And by 5 miles, I'm not talking a light leasurely jog at 9-11 min/mi, I'm talking something like a 7 min or 6:45 mile run that might get up to 7:30/min when people need a breather for a bit.

    siliconenhanced on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I liked Starship Troopers.

    Why? Well lots of reasons, one of the includes the hot naked women.

    Yes the lovely hot naked women showering, oh yes showering with the men. No special barracks, special bathrooms, special assignments, special treatment.

    Welcome to equality, and that really got me about that movie. The soldiers were soldiers, sex really didnt matter anymore.

    Detharin on
Sign In or Register to comment.