Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

United States Armed Forces finally recognizes combat duty of women

1234579

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.

  • SammyFSammyF regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .

    Okay man, first thing you need to realize plenty of soldiers are single (across the force, it's about half). So it's not just about adultery, that's a separate issue...and conveniently punishable even outside combat zones in the military. So stop talking about adultery.

    So for a single twenty one year old, who's maybe gone a year or longer without getting laid, who suddenly comes across another single twenty year old who wants to bump uglies? Yeah, that's a pretty tough to just be all "naw, I'm cool."

    Now consider that you might, you know, die tomorrow. So this could literally be your last chance ever to get laid. Obviously that's true of anybody anywhere, but you're in a place where you just last week helped load a flag-draped casket on a helicopter. It's a bit more...real.

    Ahaha, this takes me way back. I mean, this could be just me, but...

    ...I thought the best thing about having sex for the first time was knowing that I wouldn't die a virgin. I was just so fucking relieved to know that I wouldn't get smashed in a car accident tomorrow or die of old age 70 years later without getting some. And I was 18 at the time. And no where fucking near a war.

    We had virgins in my unit.

    But if some hot Air Force chick was all DTF, those dudes should totally wait, because it's not like they could get their dick blown off tomorrow and --

    Phrasing.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.

    Your "somebody has to do it" reminds me of this:




    "can you imagine a world without soldiers?"

  • rockrngerrockrnger regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader (I had thought we were still talking about the infantry) that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    rockrnger on
  • SammyFSammyF regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    I've never been in the military, either, but I once carried a woman on my back through waist high flood waters for about half a mile.

    There are all sorts of unexpected situations that come up in life where you don't want to be standing around saying, "well, shit, it'd be awesome if one of us were physically capable of handling this," and I gather that they tend to happen more often around explosive ordinance than not.

    Edit: and, I mean, hell. The specific circumstances were that I was working in Norfolk, VA, and the woman had been stranded with her vehicle on a road that was below sea level when it flooded with storm surge as a tropical storm passed directly over the Chesapeake. I just happened to be at the right place at the right time to help someone out. Considering that @evigilant happens to be a member of Virginia's National Guard, it's entirely possible that he would be sent to the right place at the right time to do the exact same thing.

    SammyF on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    What the fucking fuck? No. Dishonorable discharges are reserved almost exclusively for actual criminal matters. Not for two people having sex. And even if you did do that you've made the problem worse. Now it's not possibly a pregnant woman having to leave a combat zone it's to able bodied people because you picked a stupid harsh punishment that fucks over not only them but everyone they work with.

    EvigilantSo It Goes
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.

    Your "somebody has to do it" reminds me of this:


    "can you imagine a world without soldiers?"

    And yet all the philosophy majors in all the colleges in the country couldn't liberate a single concentration camp.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I did not know that the military had maternity leave.

    That's...interesting.

  • DarklyreDarklyre regular Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    Your HMMWV gets blown up and everyone else is incapacitated or dead and the damned thing's on fire. You're the only one that can carry them out.

    Or you're in a sniper team, and your partner gets injured. Sniper teams are usually posted by themselves, so you have no one to call on for immediate help.

    And speaking of rucksacks, I'm not getting this "made for a man" thing. Rucksacks are supposed to carry all of your vital equipment that you may need in the field. Like, there's no getting around the fact that you're carrying a whole lot of ammo and a shovel and clothes and trauma gear and water and food.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Oh god and now I've read the rest of the posts.

    SKFM just shut up with any suggestions. You literally have no idea what the Hell you're talking about.

    So It GoesBastable
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Darklyre wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    Your HMMWV gets blown up and everyone else is incapacitated or dead and the damned thing's on fire. You're the only one that can carry them out.

    Or you're in a sniper team, and your partner gets injured. Sniper teams are usually posted by themselves, so you have no one to call on for immediate help.

    And speaking of rucksacks, I'm not getting this "made for a man" thing. Rucksacks are supposed to carry all of your vital equipment that you may need in the field. Like, there's no getting around the fact that you're carrying a whole lot of ammo and a shovel and clothes and trauma gear and water and food.

    Even in Navy basic you have to haul a body around. Though we had the benefit of just 150.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    I did not know that the military had maternity leave.

    That's...interesting.

    Paternity leave too.

    Not sure what's interesting about it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    I've never been in the military, either, but I once carried a woman on my back through waist high flood waters for about half a mile.

    There are all sorts of unexpected situations that come up in life where you don't want to be standing around saying, "well, shit, it'd be awesome if one of us were physically capable of handling this," and I gather that they tend to happen more often around explosive ordinance than not.

    Yeah, I really don't feel like teaching a fucking class in "Army" here, so I'll just say that at the lower levels, an Army unit is not a Dungeons and Dragons party. You don't want to built a team of people with wildly disparate skills, min-max so everybody's super good at something, and use the strengths of one to cover for the others. For the most part, you largely want members of the unit to be interchangable...which is why you routinely cross-train on weapons (the guy assigned the SAW isn't the only one who knows how to use it), positions (because if the loader is killed the gunner or tank commander is now the loader), and why you want everybody to be able to perform certain basic tasks on demand (which is why when doing casevac training the first thing they do is have the smallest dude perform a fireman's carry on the largest dude...at least in all the units I've been in).

    The time it takes to sit around and figure out which person is physically capable of moving that casualty and which should instead provide fire support is the time it takes to create more casualties. As a small team leader, you need to be able to expect any member of your team to perform certain tasks to the standard. Some of those tasks require lifting heavy things.

    EvigilantBastable
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    That's not even for basic army stuff either.

    Every job I've had I cross trained with other people. From learning different pay and personnel stuff to boning up on signal propagation.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    I did not know that the military had maternity leave.

    That's...interesting.

    Paternity leave too.

    Not sure what's interesting about it.

    I didn't expect it.

    It's keen, but I didn't expect it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    And speaking of rucksacks, I'm not getting this "made for a man" thing. Rucksacks are supposed to carry all of your vital equipment that you may need in the field. Like, there's no getting around the fact that you're carrying a whole lot of ammo and a shovel and clothes and trauma gear and water and food.

    Yeah, the marching load for an infantryman can go over 100lbs. Water, food, ammunition, armor, other tactical equipment, and some basic survival items...but the weight adds up fast.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Which by the way?

    Fuck yo ruck sacks.

    My battalion did just a five mile march with them and our leadership quickly decided army is dumb.

  • rockrngerrockrnger regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.
    Oh sure, if there is something specific physically that a job requires like a loader that's pretty non negotiable.

    Really, care to elaborate on the carry part? Like what situations would you get in where only one person could carry someone?

    And no, never been in the military but always willing to learn.

    I've never been in the military, either, but I once carried a woman on my back through waist high flood waters for about half a mile.

    There are all sorts of unexpected situations that come up in life where you don't want to be standing around saying, "well, shit, it'd be awesome if one of us were physically capable of handling this," and I gather that they tend to happen more often around explosive ordinance than not.

    Yeah, I really don't feel like teaching a fucking class in "Army" here, so I'll just say that at the lower levels, an Army unit is not a Dungeons and Dragons party. You don't want to built a team of people with wildly disparate skills, min-max so everybody's super good at something, and use the strengths of one to cover for the others. For the most part, you largely want members of the unit to be interchangable...which is why you routinely cross-train on weapons (the guy assigned the SAW isn't the only one who knows how to use it), positions (because if the loader is killed the gunner or tank commander is now the loader), and why you want everybody to be able to perform certain basic tasks on demand (which is why when doing casevac training the first thing they do is have the smallest dude perform a fireman's carry on the largest dude...at least in all the units I've been in).

    The time it takes to sit around and figure out which person is physically capable of moving that casualty and which should instead provide fire support is the time it takes to create more casualties. As a small team leader, you need to be able to expect any member of your team to perform certain tasks to the standard. Some of those tasks require lifting heavy things.
    But then a small team leader is expected to figure out the capabilities of their team for any number of other variables. Could you tell me who the best marksman on your team is? You train with these people for how long but you cant remember if sally is stronger than ox?

    Again, I'm not arguing any specific standards for any specific jobs. I am just saying that we need to look at the way we test soldiers and make sure we don't have built in bias that don't translate into better soldiers. I don't see why that would be controversial.

    rockrnger on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Your best at anything is generally irrelevant. They need to be replaced at the drop of a hat. Units generally want well rounded people with some special skills, but nothing irreplaceable that you absolutely need.

    Bastable
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    But then a small team leader is expected to figure out the capabilities of their team for any number of other variables. Could you tell me who the best marksman on your team is? You train with these people for how long but you cant remember if sally is stronger than ox?

    Ox is the one that's down. That's why we require everybody, including Sally, to be able to move everybody else. In the combat arms units I've been in, it's been expected that the smallest soldier be able to, alone, move the largest. While still wearing gear. And that's not the only example of strength-based activities that all members of the team are expected to be able to perform.

    If you really want to learn all there is to know about this, head down to the mall and enlist. The nice man in the round hat will be glad to teach you everything you want to learn.

    Again, I'm not arguing any specific standards for any specific jobs. I am just saying that we need to look at the way we test soldiers and make sure we don't have built in bias that don't translate into better soldiers. I don't see why that would be controversial.

    Right, but in doing so you're also saying incredibly silly things because you have no idea what you're talking about.

  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Your best at anything is generally irrelevant. They need to be replaced at the drop of a hat. Units generally want well rounded people with some special skills, but nothing irreplaceable that you absolutely need.

    Yeah, when any given member of your unit might get blown the hell up by a rocket on their way into the PX tomorrow, you can't count on individual skillsets.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Your best at anything is generally irrelevant. They need to be replaced at the drop of a hat. Units generally want well rounded people with some special skills, but nothing irreplaceable that you absolutely need.

    Yeah, when any given member of your unit might get blown the hell up by a rocket on their way into the PX tomorrow, you can't count on individual skillsets.

    And even that's kind of fantastical. Maybe they twisted an ankle playing basketball or got a red cross message and are heading home.

    Your top marksman best fucking know how to drive well or qualified at combat first aid cause private Timmy who just replaced the guy you lost, assuming you even GET a replacement, probably ain't yet.

  • EvigilantEvigilant regular VARegistered User regular
    I mean we're talking purely infantry stuff. Say you're on the gun line for a M198 that fires 155mm shells, and your fire mission requires a "fire for effect" of HE green bag. A fire for effect is rapid fire at a target, and it's unit/fire mission specific, usually 3+ shots. Each 155mm round weighs 100lbs by itself. Each charge weighs between 5 to 14 lbs. You have a little over a minute to have the gun fire all of it's rounds. We used to call the shell "the cousin", because if you where being a shit, we'd make you go stand out in the field holding the cousin until we said for you to come back. And don't you dare drop it!

    Say you're stuck as M240g gunner. The gun alone weighs about 30 lbs. You carry around 800-1000rnds with you. The tripod weighs 16 lbs by itself. It's a two man team just employing the weapon.

    Now get up, dash, get down. Get up, dash, get down. Get up, get down. Get up, dash, get down. Low crawl. Now high crawl. Over, and over, and over again. Before the day is done, you get stuck on stretcher duty, so you need to be johnny on the spot all over the area to get the wounded the fuck out of there. It's physically demanding and it will take not only an emotional toll on you but you will experience the true feeling of muscle fatigue. But you can't stop because peoples lives depend on you.

    @SammyF : While I was in the guard, I was one of the lucky one to miss duty every single time hurricane detail came up due to either I had other training or I was doing something else. But in Iraq, I've carried my fair share of bodies, both American and Iraqi, sometimes they where alive, sometimes they where dead.

    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    I did not know that the military had maternity leave.

    That's...interesting.

    Paternity leave too.

    Not sure what's interesting about it.

    I didn't expect it.

    It's keen, but I didn't expect it.

    My next job will likely have flex time too. It's a brave new world.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I carried people in hurricanes as a pay clerk.

    I am all about unified PT standards.

    EvigilantA Dabble Of Thelonius
  • EgretEgret regular Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    abstinence worked wonders with soviet soldiers during WW2

    just ask the german and polish women

    _J_
  • rockrngerrockrnger regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    But then a small team leader is expected to figure out the capabilities of their team for any number of other variables. Could you tell me who the best marksman on your team is? You train with these people for how long but you cant remember if sally is stronger than ox?

    Ox is the one that's down. That's why we require everybody, including Sally, to be able to move everybody else. In the combat arms units I've been in, it's been expected that the smallest soldier be able to, alone, move the largest. While still wearing gear. And that's not the only example of strength-based activities that all members of the team are expected to be able to perform.

    If you really want to learn all there is to know about this, head down to the mall and enlist. The nice man in the round hat will be glad to teach you everything you want to learn.

    Again, I'm not arguing any specific standards for any specific jobs. I am just saying that we need to look at the way we test soldiers and make sure we don't have built in bias that don't translate into better soldiers. I don't see why that would be controversial.

    Right, but in doing so you're also saying incredibly silly things because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Ok, I think my point got lost in all of that.

    There are any number of situations where a persons physical characteristics, big and small, could mean the difference between life and death in combat. We, as a society, value masculine physical attributes over feminine ones and those are the ones the military tests for. So we require a infantryman to be strong but not thin even tho a thin person might be the only one who could get out of the small hole in the burning IFV and save the squad or wiggle thru thick brush undetected but we except those risks because of the way that we view masculinity.

    Take what we have been talking about and add the hypothetical woman dominated army. They could except the risk of of the smallest squad member not being able to lift the largest or maybe they would set their limits on the largest squad member. Neither of which would be "soldier is a soldier" which is what we are talking about.

  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Yeah, spending some time up at the headquarters level, as well as playing some strategy videogames, gave me new perspective on all the "check the box" training you have to do. So, at least from what I've gleaned, here's a brief lesson in "Army."
    Here's what a Brigade Combat Team looks like:
    1000px-Heavy_Brigade_Combat_Team_Organization.svg.png

    For reference, the left three columns or so were previously male-only. Maybe four, I forget if artillery battalions had females. But that's beside the point. The point is that each of those icons represents a unit of a given size, that is expected to have a given capability, according to Army doctrine.

    Each of those icons has its own org chart, that looks much the same. The brigade icon at the top will become a battalion icon, the battalions companies, and the companies platoons. Then each company has a similar org chart, with similar icons, all the way down to individual fireteams, vehicles, or even soldiers. Each of those, according to the required training and doctrine, is expected to be able to perform a slate of tasks to a given standard. There's a reason that you have to be able to complete a ruck march with a given weight in a given time as a required training event. Because, according to doctrine, the unit containing you is expected to be able to move at a certain rate, for a certain period, and deliver a certain level of capability (including firepower and/or support) along with them.

    These are the expectations higher-level commanders have when they make decisions. That if they give the order for that icon to move to that part of the map, that it can do so. Because according to doctrine, that's what it's supposed to be able to do, and in theory that unit has completed training events demonstrating that it is indeed capable of achieving that standard. General Dudeguy has no fucking idea who Sally and Ox are, nor does he much care.

    This is why, when my unit deployed, companies got sliced up and parted out to each other. Because they were armor companies, but we were deploying in (IIRC) a motorized rifle role. Well, an armor company doesn't have the manpower to fill that icon, so some companies got downsized (they had more guys than necessary) and some got upsized, so that each had the proper capability to fill the role implied in the org chart. And, even though these were tankers or cavalry or combat engineers and not infantrymen, each of them had trained in the tasks they were being expected to perform as part of the role of their new icon. They had "checked those boxes."

    Hopefully they were paying attention, right?

    And when, say, a tank crewmember is killed, wounded, or for some other reason evacuated and needs to be replaced, neither the receiving nor sending commander necessarily knows the particular strengths and weaknesses of the crewmember that was lost...nor do they necessarily care. Being able to load a HEAT round in a specificied amount of time is a part of the Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test that every member of both the receiving and sending unit have passed. It's a box that every soldier within those icons has checked. Every member of both units has demonstrated, and been tested on, having the physical strength to perform that task to standard. Which isn't even a particularly herculean feat, mind you, but just an example

    This is, of course, on top of all the basic soldier tasks that every soldier is already expected to be able to perform. But each icon has additional implied expectations of the members within that icon. To a higher level commander, you're not Sally or Ox, you're a line number and a stack of paperwork documenting that you've completed the required training and demonstrated that you're capable of the implied tasks.

    mcdermott on
    rockrngerA Dabble Of Thelonius
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Also, what evigilant said.

    EDIT: And in my experience, your better performing infantrymen actually aren't that big. They're strong, but not particularly large.

    EDIT: Also, sorry about the image quality on that org chart, it's just a PNG render of the SVGs available if you look up "Brigade Combat Team" on wikipedia. You can also see what an Infantry or Striker brigade looks like. It's interesting.

    mcdermott on
    Bastable
  • DarklyreDarklyre regular Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    But then a small team leader is expected to figure out the capabilities of their team for any number of other variables. Could you tell me who the best marksman on your team is? You train with these people for how long but you cant remember if sally is stronger than ox?

    Ox is the one that's down. That's why we require everybody, including Sally, to be able to move everybody else. In the combat arms units I've been in, it's been expected that the smallest soldier be able to, alone, move the largest. While still wearing gear. And that's not the only example of strength-based activities that all members of the team are expected to be able to perform.

    If you really want to learn all there is to know about this, head down to the mall and enlist. The nice man in the round hat will be glad to teach you everything you want to learn.

    Again, I'm not arguing any specific standards for any specific jobs. I am just saying that we need to look at the way we test soldiers and make sure we don't have built in bias that don't translate into better soldiers. I don't see why that would be controversial.

    Right, but in doing so you're also saying incredibly silly things because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Ok, I think my point got lost in all of that.

    There are any number of situations where a persons physical characteristics, big and small, could mean the difference between life and death in combat. We, as a society, value masculine physical attributes over feminine ones and those are the ones the military tests for. So we require a infantryman to be strong but not thin even tho a thin person might be the only one who could get out of the small hole in the burning IFV and save the squad or wiggle thru thick brush undetected but we except those risks because of the way that we view masculinity.

    Take what we have been talking about and add the hypothetical woman dominated army. They could except the risk of of the smallest squad member not being able to lift the largest or maybe they would set their limits on the largest squad member. Neither of which would be "soldier is a soldier" which is what we are talking about.

    What.

    We don't test a soldier's attributes based on masculine values, we test a soldier's attributes based on necessity. Crawling out of a tiny hole in a burning IFV is basically the definition of "concocted situation."

    I mean, when is physical strength not going to be needed? If you've got only one person in a tank that can load and they get hurt or killed, what the hell are you gonna do, try to run some poor fuck over? Or what if someone can't carry their rucksack? Are you going to split their load up among the other squad members and leave them without basic gear if they're separated?

    QuidmcdermottEvigilant
  • BastableBastable regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, what evigilant said.

    EDIT: And in my experience, your better performing infantrymen actually aren't that big. They're strong, but not particularly large.

    Limited studies (Korea/Stalingrad) tend to show that when units are starving, the bigger stronger chaps are the ones to succumb first to the combo of starvation/exposure.

    Anecdotally when I was a section IC i'd notice the smaller chaps were better at lugging the C-9 (SAW) than the larger Island man mountains. In accord with the US military anecdotes here all the smaller girls and boys still had to prove and be trained to fire man carry larger people, combat expect everything to go wrong.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.


    8->

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.


    8->

    It's J.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Soldiers follow orders, yes? And disobeying these orders is bad and met with punishment. One of those orders is to not have sex in combat zones. And somehow, punishing those who disobey that order is a problem?

    For the record, my single favorite thing about the US military is that it punishes adultery. I just wish it wasn't discouraged as a sole charge for military prosecution.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

    It's not for everybody (or their families), and to some extent it is a young man's game.

    As for the wisdom of soldiering in and of itself...meh. It's arguable that somebody has to do it, until super smart guys like you manage to bring an end to war.


    8->

    It's J.

    Hiya.

  • SammyFSammyF regular Registered User regular
    Bastable wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, what evigilant said.

    EDIT: And in my experience, your better performing infantrymen actually aren't that big. They're strong, but not particularly large.

    Limited studies (Korea/Stalingrad) tend to show that when units are starving, the bigger stronger chaps are the ones to succumb first to the combo of starvation/exposure.

    I'd believe that.

    Evigilant
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Soldiers follow orders, yes? And disobeying these orders is bad and met with punishment. One of those orders is to not have sex in combat zones. And somehow, punishing those who disobey that order is a problem?

    For the record, my single favorite thing about the US military is that it punishes adultery. I just wish it wasn't discouraged as a sole charge for military prosecution.

    Omg that guy didn't take out the trash like she told him too!

    Well, I guess we better destroy his life and not replace him for an year or so so that everyone else suffers too.

  • EvigilantEvigilant regular VARegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    But then a small team leader is expected to figure out the capabilities of their team for any number of other variables. Could you tell me who the best marksman on your team is? You train with these people for how long but you cant remember if sally is stronger than ox?

    Ox is the one that's down. That's why we require everybody, including Sally, to be able to move everybody else. In the combat arms units I've been in, it's been expected that the smallest soldier be able to, alone, move the largest. While still wearing gear. And that's not the only example of strength-based activities that all members of the team are expected to be able to perform.

    If you really want to learn all there is to know about this, head down to the mall and enlist. The nice man in the round hat will be glad to teach you everything you want to learn.

    Again, I'm not arguing any specific standards for any specific jobs. I am just saying that we need to look at the way we test soldiers and make sure we don't have built in bias that don't translate into better soldiers. I don't see why that would be controversial.

    Right, but in doing so you're also saying incredibly silly things because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Ok, I think my point got lost in all of that.

    There are any number of situations where a persons physical characteristics, big and small, could mean the difference between life and death in combat. We, as a society, value masculine physical attributes over feminine ones and those are the ones the military tests for. So we require a infantryman to be strong but not thin even tho a thin person might be the only one who could get out of the small hole in the burning IFV and save the squad or wiggle thru thick brush undetected but we except those risks because of the way that we view masculinity.

    Take what we have been talking about and add the hypothetical woman dominated army. They could except the risk of of the smallest squad member not being able to lift the largest or maybe they would set their limits on the largest squad member. Neither of which would be "soldier is a soldier" which is what we are talking about.

    This is all bullshit. We value results over masculine attributes. Tall skinny guys, or short fat guys always, always get stuck with the crew served weapon. When I was team leader, my driver was 4'8". I'm 6'1 and I weigh around 150lbs on a bad day, and 145lbs usually. I have done everything in a team or squad: from team leader, squad leader, driver, gunner, security dismount, whatever. Tall, skinny, big, fat, it doesn't matter. Like mcdermott said, it's a "check in the box" (btw, I hate that phrase so much). Everyone knows how to ruck, everyone is supposed to know how to shoot and move and communicate, some units do it better than others because of their specialty (like an infantry unit will do it better than a support unit), but that support unit at least knows the fundamentals and basics (In theory).

    When I was squad leader, of course I knew who was better at what, but I also knew that when my best went down, I had other people able to step in and pick up that slack, or I'd do it. If I went down, I know someone in my squad was going to take my place, because I had been training them on it.

    You don't see much specific specialization outside of warrant officers (duh). SOF yeah, but they're unique, an outlier, an exception. If an infantry unit needs foot support and the closest unit to them is a pay unit, you bet your ass that pay unit is going to be told to ruck up and haul ass down there to provide support.

    And mcdermott, FA batteries (line units) are male only since it's a combat arms MOS. Now, there are some MOS's in the 13 series that allow women, but those MOS's don't see combat all that often, and those are usually a few individuals rather than a company/battery.

    Here's how badly women are being treated in my primary MOS:

    4. Field Artillery:

    It is important for all female officers considering the Field Artillery as their branch of choice to fully understand the implications of the current DOD policy excluding females from service in MLRS and Cannon units based on the collocation exclusion criteria. This policy limits the opportunities for female officers to gain credible Field Artillery leadership experiences and tactical and technical training proficiency. This policy places an additional burden on female Field Artillery officers to remain competitive with their male peers.
    Currently female officers cannot be assigned to Field Artillery tactical battalions (TOE units - cannon or rocket). Therefore, female officers are excluded from many of the primary leadership positions (platoon leader, fire direction officer, and fire support officer) that are the foundations of experience in building a successful Field Artillery career. Female officers will routinely be assigned to the Field Artillery Training Center (Basic Training or Advanced individual Training units) or other TDA assignments at Fort Sill (1-78 FA or 2-2 FA - training support units), or at Brigade or higher levels (HHB DIVARTY, HHB FA BDE, HHB Corps Artillery). Females are limited to commands outside the tactical Field Artillery battalions. Therefore, female captains must seek battery commands at Brigade level or higher (usually headquarters type batteries) or in training center batteries. At the Major level, a female officer can become an executive officer or S3 of a training battalion but would lack the TOE experience to perform duties as a S3 or XO at a brigade level TOE unit.

    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    Soldiers follow orders, yes? And disobeying these orders is bad and met with punishment. One of those orders is to not have sex in combat zones. And somehow, punishing those who disobey that order is a problem?

    For the record, my single favorite thing about the US military is that it punishes adultery. I just wish it wasn't discouraged as a sole charge for military prosecution.

    For the record, I don't think anybody in this thread much cares about your position on adultery, nor is it particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

    As for orders, some orders are enforced more harshly than others. When I was in country, both pornography and alcohol were also forbidden. The former...well yeah, I'll let you guess how rigorously that tended to be enforced. The latter was obviously pursued more often, but at the same time believe it or not a whole lot of soldiers got their hands on alcohol and drank it. Either from soldiers from other nations (they were under different orders, some allowed alcohol), from interpreters that came from off-base, or even smuggled in the mail in contact solution bottles (not that I know...anything...about...that).

    Yes, believe it or not people would drink even when they were not supposed to. And commanders would often take only minimal steps to enforce that rule, much the same way (and you may not realize this) we don't have police hitting the streets all night long looking for drunk teenagers.

    Because the purpose of the rule isn't that we think we're actually going to prevent the behavior. Soldiers are gonna drink, look at porn, and bone. The idea is to keep it on the fucking down low so it doesn't get out of hand, and as an add-on charge if it does get out of hand and disrupt order and discipline.

    Whereas you seem concerned with the actual legalistic notion of people disobeying the order and not "controlling their impulses," believe it or not the commanders handing down the orders just care about minimizing the negative effects of the behavior.

    BastableSo It Goes
  • rockrngerrockrnger regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yeah, spending some time up at the headquarters level, as well as playing some strategy videogames, gave me new perspective on all the "check the box" training you have to do. So, at least from what I've gleaned, here's a brief lesson in "Army."
    Here's what a Brigade Combat Team looks like:
    1000px-Heavy_Brigade_Combat_Team_Organization.svg.png

    For reference, the left three columns or so were previously male-only. Maybe four, I forget if artillery battalions had females. But that's beside the point. The point is that each of those icons represents a unit of a given size, that is expected to have a given capability, according to Army doctrine.

    Each of those icons has its own org chart, that looks much the same. The brigade icon at the top will become a battalion icon, the battalions companies, and the companies platoons. Then each company has a similar org chart, with similar icons, all the way down to individual fireteams, vehicles, or even soldiers. Each of those, according to the required training and doctrine, is expected to be able to perform a slate of tasks to a given standard. There's a reason that you have to be able to complete a ruck march with a given weight in a given time as a required training event. Because, according to doctrine, the unit containing you is expected to be able to move at a certain rate, for a certain period, and deliver a certain level of capability (including firepower and/or support) along with them.

    These are the expectations higher-level commanders have when they make decisions. That if they give the order for that icon to move to that part of the map, that it can do so. Because according to doctrine, that's what it's supposed to be able to do, and in theory that unit has completed training events demonstrating that it is indeed capable of achieving that standard. General Dudeguy has no fucking idea who Sally and Ox are, nor does he much care.

    This is why, when my unit deployed, companies got sliced up and parted out to each other. Because they were armor companies, but we were deploying in (IIRC) a motorized rifle role. Well, an armor company doesn't have the manpower to fill that icon, so some companies got downsized (they had more guys than necessary) and some got upsized, so that each had the proper capability to fill the role implied in the org chart. And, even though these were tankers or cavalry or combat engineers and not infantrymen, each of them had trained in the tasks they were being expected to perform as part of the role of their new icon. They had "checked those boxes."

    Hopefully they were paying attention, right?

    And when, say, a tank crewmember is killed, wounded, or for some other reason evacuated and needs to be replaced, neither the receiving nor sending commander necessarily knows the particular strengths and weaknesses of the crewmember that was lost...nor do they necessarily care. Being able to load a HEAT round in a specificied amount of time is a part of the Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test that every member of both the receiving and sending unit have passed. It's a box that every soldier within those icons has checked. Every member of both units has demonstrated, and been tested on, having the physical strength to perform that task to standard. Which isn't even a particularly herculean feat, mind you, but just an example

    This is, of course, on top of all the basic soldier tasks that every soldier is already expected to be able to perform. But each icon has additional implied expectations of the members within that icon. To a higher level commander, you're not Sally or Ox, you're a line number and a stack of paperwork documenting that you've completed the required training and demonstrated that you're capable of the implied tasks.
    First off, awesome.

    But I'm explaining myself ok right? That the boxes you check and the expectations are based on the society that birthed them and that a society that had always used women for combat would have a whole different set of expectations. They would expect a man to fit into a IFV designed for a 110 pound woman and be small enough for the weakest woman to carry.

    So what's the problem? They are leaving half the possible talent for their military on the table when, with some small adjustments, they can expand their recruitment and have better soldiers.

    rockrnger on
Sign In or Register to comment.