Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations’ militaries

Look, the fact is that many women in the military agree with this. It's not their fault they were born with different bone structures and support. It's two different type of bodies which is why their PT standards will always be lower.

Sure, there are a few who might be able to hack it. I know two females passed Ranger school (although many people I know have heard that the OR commanders were told to give them a few extra shots at some of the FTX work), so it's not impossible. However, the standard should be either all of them can keep up, or none can. If there are some that can, fine, waiver them through.

 

I agree with a single unified standard.

But the fact that most women can't pass it doesn't mean all women should be banned.

 

Reread my last sentence.

 

I get that. I was making a general statement to try and counter the misogynistic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on full display by others in this thread.

 

Why does everyone go silent on the question of why don't male flag officers and older male military personnel also have to meet the same standards as new recruits and younger personnel?

 

Because they don't hump rucks, either. Interestingly, the physical requirements for old guys is higher than for young women.

By having just a few women as a social experiment you greatly complicate logistics.

 

You are debating with the view that the only combat in the military are infantry with light arms without any transporation of any type. In their logic, all the money and personnel for armor, transportation, supply, aircraft, tanks etc and all other combat positions should be eliminated. Rather, the military in terms of combat should singularly consist of infantry with light arms. Regardless of age or role, they all must be men who meet the current standards for special forces. No one else may be in a combat zone nor any other role than infantry with light arms and heavy packs.

They will parachute into the war zone and then win the war all on their own having only what they have initially in their packs as that is the only legitimate form of combat. All-alone and only with what the brung, that infantry personnel then has to win the war all by themselves.

So, for example, in their view John McCain actually never was in any combat role, nor is anyone driving a truck, a tank or flying aircraft. None of them should even be allowed in a combat zone. Those helicopter pilots also are not considered to be combat roles and should not be allowed in a war or combat zone, nor is anyone in artillery. No one driving any truck either, no trucks nor any mechanical and supply should ever been allowed into a combat zone. If you're not wearing a 60+ pound pack and carrying a rifle you are not to be in combat or a combat zone. That is what they insist in real terms.

It's like debating a person on a factory assembly line claiming he should be running the company because everyone in management is all wrong about everything and that everyone but people on the assembly should be eliminated as that is all the company is - a line of assembly workers. The basic premise is so absurd there really is a no debate as the person is arguing they are everything and everyone else is nothing. You are debating people claim no one should even be allowed in a war or combat zone except heavy-pack-wearing infantry with rifles. It is that absurd a debate.

 

It reminds me a bit of reading posts by Mike Sparks, minus the obsession with the M-113.

 

For example, the female medic who ran 70 meters thru enemy fire to a downed male soldier and stayed with him under rifle and RPG attack should never have been allowed and she did it all wrong. In the view, her actions are an example of why women should not be allowed into combat roles or zones.

Rather, the correct course was for a male officer weighing at least 250 pounds should have crawled 70 meters to the down soldier shot in the throat and bleeding out - and then crawled back 70 meters, dragging the dead bled-out soldier back as the correct procedure in combat. Of course, while crawling to and from he also is wearing his 120 pound bag and ideally there is available water, hose and pump because he really should be crawling thru mud to do it perfectly right.

 

Don't know that I would use John McCain as an example, pampered admiral's son, crashed five airplanes yet continued to fly. Finally shot down and collaborates with enemy.

 

Well there will never be universal PT standards for the Army as a whole. That would mean we'd have to lower the expectations. What should happen is there should be universal PT standards for any combat MOS. That way, if a woman could keep up, they could retain the MOS and go out and smoke some terrorists.

 

100% agree.

Although, I can see merit in making them unit standards down to say the battalion level rather than solely based on MOS.

 

Yea that would make sense. Since not all MOS and their units do the same thing.

 

Plus you have a lot of units with mixed MOS's in them.

 

Yea. My old unit was an MP company in a transportation battalion.

 

Or think of the absolute cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) of MOS's in a RSTA squadron.

 

He did not crash 5 aircraft. That was just typical Democrat-media propaganda lies as they commonly publish. 3 did "crash." 2 were his error in trainers and 1 questionable.

One was destroyed on deck - that you falsely claim was a "crash" with no fault of his even suggested and the 5th was shot down - that you also falsely call "a crash."

Flying combat missions isn't being "pampered."

So your claim is that if a soldier infantry is shot or blow up what it means is that he is incompetent because he destroyed another uniform. That is the logic of the contempt of military personnel in your message anyway.

 

Though you are correct, as a former 11B (infantry), I used to hate pilots in their cozy cockpits pressing buttons all day

 

Haha yea didn't think about that

 

How many times have you seen a field grade of flag grade officer on the battlefield ?

An officer usually gets his combat experience as a company grade officers. It's when they get their "Officers Good Conduct Medal" aka the Bronze Star.

Enlisted had to earn the Bronze Star while officers, the Bronze Star just came along with the job of being a company grade officer. Well at least during the Vietnam War.

 

Hey ArmySoldier, ever hear of the "gun truck" ?

They were developed during the Vietnam War when Army motor transport soldiers found themselves being grunts.

A good read. -> Circle the Wagons:
The History
of US Army
Convoy Security -> http://grambo.us/atav/killblane.pdf

Lessons learned during the Vietnam War and lessons unlearned for the next thirty years and lessons that had to be relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My favorite was the 6 X with a quadruple M-2 .50 cal HMG's

When the Army went Mad Max: Vietnam gun trucks. -> http://www.guns.com/2015/07/31/when-the-army-went-mad-max-vietnam-gun-trucks-16-photos/

 

Women in the military ain't never gonna work, for example a couple of years ago the Royal Navy assigned a woman captain to command a frigate, but within 5 minutes she was bonking some bloke on board-



and in combat women captains wouldn't be much cop at all-
Sonar operator- "Picking up propeller noise on passive sonar ma'am, shall I switch to active sonar to pinpoint its position?"
Woman captain- "Don't you dare! You know that wretched pinging sets my nerves on edge!"

 

Very interesting link. Thanks.

 

Makes sense. Not quite so for helicopter pilots, at least not in the past such as in Vietnam. I've commented on the forum that the military will spend millions and tens of millions per aircraft to make it safer for pilots, but an extra $25 for a better helmet for Infantry and Marines? Well, we can't afford that.

Not as bad as in the past, though. There were times where they wouldn't allow more than 20 practice bullets per soldier for the expense.

 

Pretty cool, they put the body of a M-113 APC on the bed of the 6 X.