Army Combat Fitness Test Fiasco! Slides Reveal 84% of Women Failing ACFT

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Lil Mike, Oct 8, 2019.

Tags:
  1. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not surprising.. at all. Anecdote.. had a dresser that stuck out.. my wife brushed against it and had a huge balck and blue bruise.. I hit and knocked it a couple of inches.. had a tiny red mark that last a few days.
    Even at my age and physical condition, I could flat knock out 90% of the women in this world with one punch (which is why we were raised to NEVER HIT A LADY)
     
  2. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well to be fair America sort of already does that anyway. Our Rules of Engagement policies are set mostly by the Generals running the region with influence from the President and Congress at the time. That's why we go from GWB "shock and awe" to Obama "hearts and minds" to Trump "knock them out".

    In regards to eliminating the incentive I believe what I posted still stands unfortunately when dealing with terrorists. In order to eliminate their incentive to use human shields we'd have to show them that human shields aren't effective. Only way to do that is by shooting through the human shields as far as I know.

    But America isn't afraid to ignore international law or deal with this sort of road block when we need to. I mean hell we sort of flat out invaded an entire country and had it's leader hanged for something he had absolutely nothing to do with...We executed Bin Laden and tossed him in the ocean. Our "allies" didn't want to help us in the Iraq War citing legal and morals issues so since we couldn't use some of their airfields we just parked a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf and bombarded Iraq anyway.

    And apparently according to a recent article yesterday the UN says that us blowing up Soleimani with a tank buster was highly illegal and we sort of knew it was the second the strike was authorized and we don't exactly care. And Obama's 24/7 unrestricted drone warfare was criticized as being illegal as well, which is sort of was seeing how we were whacking people in Pakistan half the time yet even Obama shrugged his shoulders about it while Pakistan whined all day long.

    I am however 100% on board with a "give no quarter" policy to terrorists. I would be perfectly fine with a policy that eliminated our requirement to treat them as established enemy combatants and let them surrender to be captured. I don't believe terrorists deserve POW treatment, they are not professional Soldiers of a legitimate national government, they are rogue terrorists.
     
    Ddyad and Lil Mike like this.
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you order the code red?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's why the Pentagon backtracked on that new PT test.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the progressive law of war are designed to encourage more wars, and more savage warfare. It has worked very well.
     
  6. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The USG would not have to ignore international law so often if it avoided wars that did not serve the interests of the US, and I cannot think of one that has gained any significant or long term advantage for the US since 1945.

    Combatants who dress as civilians to use civilians as shields and cover are war criminals.
    Catching and releasing them encourages more savage warfare.
     
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but nobody has the absolute power within the Chain of Command to order troops to carry out unlawful orders. Not even the President. So if anybody within the chain of command orders something like the deliberate targeting of non combatant innocent civilians then troops are under no obligation to carry out that order. And if the Federal government ever went rogue and decided to use the US military against the populace then the military is actually obligated to turn on the Federal government because the US Constitution takes precedence over the orders of the anybody within the chain of command.

    In layman's terms, if anybody ever orders the military to go against the Constitution then that person has now become the enemy of the military. We defend the US Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Going against the Constitution is treason even if you are the duly elected President of the United States.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  8. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree 100%. I have yet to find anybody who can give me a legitimate reason why we went to Vietnam, Desert Storm, or Iraq v2.

    Desert Storm was honestly little more than a proving ground for America to flex it's Cold War muscle. We had spent decades playing chess on paper with the Soviets and had been fighting a theoretical war against them on paper. After we won the Cold War we had a bunch of technology and military hardware that we sort of wanted to test in the real world. Saddam just happened to be a convenient excuse to see what these new cool weapons would do on a battlefield. So we took our brand new Abrams tanks, Apache helo's, F-117 Stealth Fighters, etc and kicked him in the teeth with them. We wanted the world to see what America could do to somebody and formally establish ourselves as the sole remaining Super Power on Earth, and let every see it clearly with their own eyes.

    Iraq v2 was the most grasping at straws excuse to invade somebody I have ever seen. Even Vietnam had more justification than Iraq v2 and that's saying something. Afghanistan made more sense as a result of 9/11 but a full flown conventional military invasion of Afghanistan made no strategic sense as I've said before.

    But yes I agree 100%. The catch and release policy of terrorists is asinine. Terrorism is an international crime, using human shields is a worse one. They are not enemy "soldiers" they are illegitimate war criminals operating under no formally recognized state government. They should not be giving the treatment of enemy soldiers under the Geneva Convention, they don't count.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. But the only reason I disagreed with the new ACFT test isn't because women couldn't pass it but because I disagree with having this new PT test in general. The Army doesn't need to have 1 PT test for everybody because not everybody does the same job in the Army requiring the same level of physical fitness. The Army is like any other regular community where the vast majority of Soldiers actually work at desks just like civilians do. Very few are actually combat troops who have a legitimate reason to need to be able to deadlift weights and run miles.

    It's just a culture and pride thing with the Army that makes cool sound bites. "We are all Soldiers first", no you're not, your an admin clerk who works at a desk who happens to wear ACU patterned clothes to work...Taking nothing away from them, we NEED these people for the Army to function properly and their jobs are necessary although we tend to poke fun at them. But the Army is a war machine comprised of like 90% support personnel who support the 10% of those who go out and dig trenches and shoot people.

    They don't all need to be able to do that....And like 99.998% of all female Soldiers are support personnel. Trying to kick them all out because they can't leg tuck was stupid. Not because of equality, but because kicking out anybody who isn't Infantry or Armor or Scouts or something because they can't leg tuck is stupid whether they are male female or martian.

    I don't give a damn if the finance clerk can carry heavy stuff and run. I need her to get my paperwork done properly so I get my TDY backpay money in a timely fashion. If she is ever running around with a rucksack and a rifle in a real world conflict then something has gone HORRIBLY wrong and we have already lost the war because that's not her job...
     
  10. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with all of that. I always wondered how we could have screwed up so royally in Vietnam - then I read "A Bright Shining Lie". The first half of the book details dozens of tragic errors in judgement on the part of political and military leaders start of US involvement. It is a mesmerizing account of how we maneuvered ourselves into a position where no good outcome was possible. I could not bring myself to read the rest of the book that details every mistake to the final evacuation of the embassy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie
     
  11. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is all fine and dandy if the job being performed requires physical strength and endurance and/or durability. Does anybody care that the lady doing their registration at the DMV can deadlift or leg tuck or run 2 miles? No, don't think anybody has ever in the history of humanity advocated those be qualifications to work at the DMV. Pretty sure nobody is going to deny their doctors care if they need surgery because he/she can't do a leg tuck either...

    Virtually every single women in the military has a job that requires about as much physical fitness and durability as the person who does your taxes...

    Sure I could also likely cold clock out almost every single woman currently serving in the military with one punch...how exactly does that disqualify her from being able to work in the finance office or turn wrenches like 99.999% of them do in the Army? We don't need them to be able to "fight", we have people in the Army who's job it is to do that.

    Just because it's the "Army" doesn't mean we require some special type of people. The "Army" is less than 10% of the Army, the rest of it are pretty much civilian caliber folks who do civilian jobs who happen to wear camo uniforms to work.

    If women want to "fight" in the military in those specific MOS's then yeah they need to equal their male counterparts physical standards without exception. But for the 99.999% of them who DON'T do that then who the hell cares if they are as strong and durable as men?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  12. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what if the mission is FUBAR because the terrorists hide with the civilians, do soldiers take it upon themselves to disobey lawful orders

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_slang
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  13. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    all wars are good because they put all those fancy machines to work, and provide positioning for global domination.

    since America is globalist, wars everywhere secure trading partners and provide leverage on them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  14. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    code reds by brass are okay as long as they are saving American lives,

    American civilians are worth more than foreign civilians and should be protected at all costs.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2007/05/21/say-u-s-lives-worth-more-than-others/
     
  15. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe. I personally have never seen it but I can't say with 100% certainty that it doesn't happen.
     
  16. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thank you for your service.
     
  17. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do we spend trillions on weapons systems when all we need are a lot of guys who can carry heavy packs? If we were to eliminate all weapons systems - other than rifles - and eliminate all aircraft, computers, medical care etc we could save hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Should we need to intervene anywhere in the world then just drop off 50,000 guys with heavy packs with rifles and we can win any conflict and then they are on their own. Just think of all the money that would be saved.
    If we had been doing this all along, just think how much money would have been saved in WW2 if we only had rifle battalions and nothing else? We didn't need all the rest of that stuff or people who knew how to use it. Really, just issue really heavy packs, a shield and a sword as all our military has ever needed.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  18. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Be sure that mortars are banned before trying that. ;-)
     
  19. Up On the Governor

    Up On the Governor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I’m a fighter pilot. How does my job size up to someone that works at HR Block? Also, neither you nor that old **** could knock out anyone with a single punch. Keep your dick-slinging in check. I know it’s tempting to be tough on the Internet.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The launching of nukes has never required the approval of Congress. Even suggesting that it should would be retarded.

    The President can do that entirely on their own, they do not even need to notify Congress if they decide to do so. After all, the Football does not follow the Speaker of the House. Or the Senate Majority Leader. It follows the President, and only the President.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    did you see bradley cooper in the American sniper movie? men in the Army do mortal combat with the enemy which requires physical superiority.

    women in planes press buttons to neutralize the enemy, they are far removed and don't need intestinal fortitude.
     
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are aware that is a movie, right? Trust me, coming in and trying to use a movie as the basis of your claim is always a good way to get laughed at.

    "Mortal combat"? "Physical superiority"? Do you actually believe such nonsense? This is not some movie, where we send in The Expendables, and everybody looks like Dolph Lundgren and Sly Stalone.

    I suggest you stick to the movies section of the forum. In Hollywood, nobody gives a damn about reality.
     
  23. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the iraq war vet who served behind enemy lines stated he could knock out every woman in the military with one punch

    that post was merely in support of his claim.
     
  24. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah and as a female fighter pilot there are some physical standards that you had to obviously meet in order to pursue that career, standards that should be equal for both males and females given the nature of your job.

    Your job is rare, and as I'm sure you know you yourself are rare in your career field, that's not a knock, that's a compliment. Us helo pilots have very few females as well but we don't require the same physical capabilities that ya'll do. I'm sure nobody in their right mind would advocate that the Air Force qualifies female pilots who pass out at high g's because their bodies can't handle it in favor of "equal opportunity".

    This isn't an attack on female service members, quite the opposite actually. It's a statistical fact that the overwhelming vast majority of all jobs in the military that require "physical strength/endurance" are occupied by males. The overwhelming vast majority of all female service members work in support roles at jobs that are seriously no more physically demanding than normal civilian jobs. So I struggle to understand the reasoning behind so many pounding their chests talking about "haha equal rights women! Make them do whatever the men can do if you want to serve!".

    Why? I went in for my recent flight physical the other day, the flight medic who did my paperwork and took my vitals was a tiny 100lb Korean female. Her job is to do basic clinic type work, shes not a combat field medic, she can do everything required for her job in the Army as a tiny 100lb female. So why exactly does she need to be able to deadlift and leg tuck?

    One of the 3 female pilots in my unit is a great friend of mine who we keep having the good fortune of PCSing to the same duty stations together. She is maybe 130lbs in full flight gear. The most "stuff" we lift is tossing our helmet bags and survival gear into the storage bay of the helicopter and if we feel like being nice we might carry tuff boxes around to help setup a field site or something. Why does she need to be able to deadlift or leg tuck? Her job isn't to ruck around heavy equipment as an infantry Soldier or pick up heavy tank parts as a tanker. Shes a pilot, her job is to fly that helicopter and sit at a desk all day doing computer work like the rest of us. Yet according to many in this thread since she isn't as strong as me or her other male counterparts then she should be fired.

    Put it this way, if the alarm bells ring and we go to war again I want my 130lb 1500+hour multiple combat tour veteran female pilot who can't leg tuck flying my wing over the flight school graduate PT stud dude who can run 2 miles in 12 minutes and do 20 pullups. I don't care if our female pilots aren't as physically strong as our male pilots, we don't pay them to be athletes we pay them to fly helicopters.

    Certain specific roles in the military require more stringent physical standards, jet pilot, Army/Marines combat arms, etc. Those roles should have specific physical standards that must be bet by both male and female applicants without exception. For the other 90%+ of the military that ISN'T those types of jobs what the hell difference does it make if the females aren't as physically fit as the males? The jobs don't REQUIRE you to be physically fit...
     
  25. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You sound like the chair force, bro. Temper tantrums normally come from that branch. Please don't say you're Army...that'd be embarrassing for us.
     

Share This Page