Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

I stated no such thing. I stated, the biggest challenge in military aviation is carrier operations.
Just our Naval/Marine Aviators alone...are the greatest in the World at what they do.

In 2012, USAF airlifters flew 29,560 sorties, the lowest number flights since 2004.
It's called experience in theater.

While Canada has sent a contingency to Afghanistan, none to Iraq, and of course that is greatly appreciated...
nowhere near the level of dedicated air and ground elements contributed by the United States to both theaters.

Over the past decade or so, the Army, Navy and Air Force, remotely piloted aircraft have logged around 2.7 million flight hours...just the unmanned systems.

Never mind the training, real world experience..the United States dominates all facets of the air.

When you walk through the doors of the equivalent of this for the RCAF...
we'll talk.



Till then, you're one of those "I know somebody who knows somebody who was there."

Confidence is a must, to a man...or woman if that is the case, you must believe you are the best in the World.
Best in the WORLD.


good day.

 

20/20 vision isn't everything in combat, but having good visual perceptive skills is. Testing done on some of the top aces in WW2 showed that many of them did not have 20/20 vision in either eye. However, all these good aces were able to percieve the enemy from the backgroud and engage them effectively.

Infantry combat is not like an olympic shooting event. Military requirements say that for basic positions, soldiers should be less than +-8.00D on their scripts. Percentage wise, these high myopes, hyperopes and astigmats would be less than 5% of the US population, and even less of a percentage with combat troops.

Even if a soldier with +-6.00D broke or lost his glasses, he would not be as helpless as Velma on Scooby Doo, wandering around blind. Most could pick out targets within 50 yards or at least follow their teams to safety.

A smart soldier would always have a back up RX on hand.

 

there's no doors there.

 

Stealth..."low observability" doors.

Top Secret.

Wyly's a good guy, I'm not trying to put down Canada and it's very competent RCAF...however...
Our USAF spares no expense to train it's aircrews on the finest, often most expensive...training aids in the World.

 

not new, not secret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzHWK2krwU

i think those are Iranians-the tail numbers are photoshopped.

 

Combat is difficult enough without the added hassle of dealing with prescription glasses...
gas masks, night vision goggles all hindered by glasses.

Nevermind breaking them, the mere presence of prescription glasses on the battlefield is a hindrance...but the infantry arms requires lots of warm bodies...they can't be all that selective in an all-volunteer military. Therefore, prescription glasses, within parameters of correcting vision to 20/20 in one eye...are allowed.
Those who wear them, are still a liability...just the fact of having to wear them presents a hindrance in and of itself in a combat environment.

A liability if you will...that is allowed in order to adequately fill the ranks with the rifle carrying soldier.

Which is why, regardless of the naysayers and "peanut gallery" quips...if indeed having women serve in the combat arms right alongside the men is foreseen (no pun intended) as an automatic liability..the same can be said for wearers of prescription glasses. They are an automatic liability from the get go in a combat environment...
yet the military allows it...an acceptable risk.

 

Actually, it is true and you are more than welcome to ask any non-US pilot that. It's actually why ENJJPT was created and still exists.

It's wrong anyways because it wasn't taken at Vance.

 

The military uses biometrical science studying the effects of things like eyesight and physical parameters, just as they do for designing aircraft.

Because women have about 60% the strength of men, the PT requirements are naturally about 60% less for women in sit-ups, push-ups and so on.

Studies must have been done and have been filed away on how effective a soldier is on the battlefield with "X" amount of vision. Your concerns about soldiers breaking or losing their glasses on the battlefield are overblown.

The average amount of blur or distortion percieved by the average regular infantry soldier who wears a correction, but does not have it on (not SF, etc.) can be simulated by placing a pair of cheap +1.50 drugstore readers over your hopefully corrected eyes. This will blur you to about 20/200. You are blurred, but not an unfunctioning liability walking around. Now, even if you don't have a gun, aim out the window, day or night, and with both eyes open you can probably still see well enough to fire back at someone across the street.

I absoulety do not support women being in ground infantry combat, as I have been over ad naseum before, but those who wear low and moderate prescriptions are of no significant risk.

 

I have no idea what your background is, or experience...but you're wrong.

The DoD is so concerned they have a recent program which allows qualified soldiers...free refractive eye surgery to get them out of prescription lenses...because eyeglasses with prescription lenses are a hindrance in combat.

"Overblown" indeed...this is the DoD's own words...explicitly stating it's a readiness issue.

Source: http://ermc.amedd.army.mil/soldiers/Eye_Surgery_Army_Landstuhl.pdf

 

My point was that the average combat soldier wearing a typical RX can still function without them in combat if they are lost/broken. 20/20 vision may be given for snipers, pilots and other elite operators, but is not needed for typical combat encounters.

The military's Lasik program sounds good. There are side effects from lasik with dryness and edema depending on the altitute and climate and person's age---but the benefits will probably outweigh the risks. Glasses do have drawbacks working around helmets and weapon optics. Contacts are better, but suffer in dry, dusty climates.

Maybe you have noticed, but most soldiers like the benefits of eye protection in combat---with combat safety glasses or goggels. Safety glasses worn by SEALs and others can be made in most prescriptions and will work with most optical systems and headgear.

 

Ever jogged with sunglasses or non-prescription glasses...
you sweat...the sweat pours on the lenses and vision is effected as a result, same as a car windshield.

it's not always just about if they lost them or not...frankly I'd be a little nervous around a soldier...in combat...wearing prescription lens eyeglasses.

Visual acuity is a necessity, you don't want to distinguish good guys from bad guys with blurred or hindered vision...
in many jobs it's not a factor...however in the combat arms, it's vital. It's life or death.

and indeed having women serve on the front lines in combat alongside men may be hindrance as well because of weaker physical strength, on the ground at least...this is a peripheral issue to that...if indeed readiness is the priority here...get guys wearing prescription lenses off the front lines too.

 

Given my advanced age, I wear multifocal contacts most of the time.

Sweat, rain, bad weather is going to effect the guy wearing non-prescription safety eyewear the same as the guys without it (but be more blurred while cleaning it).

I wear Wiley X sunglasses that are favs of the SF guys. Mine have clip in goggle inserts that only limit my side vision a bit. They don't normally fog up running or biking.

Eye protection should take priority over correcting combat troops with lasik.

http://nsrdec.natick.army.mil/APBI/...pr_22_APBI_Military Combat Eye Protection.pdf

 

Contact lenses are not allowed.
If I made the rules, no one would be allowed in the combat arms without a normal visual acuity of 20/20..to maintain proper readiness...no exceptions, no waivers.

There aren't enough volunteers willing to serve in the combat arms who would meet that standard however and at the same time all the other standards, such as physical fitness, so vision standards are lowered and correctable vision within certain parameters are allowed.

You never hear about that though, there's no outcry of...."it will kill troops" the way physical strength is used to keep women off the battlefield.

A liability is a liability.

yet vision standards are lowered and vision aids, specifically prescription lenses, are allowed so as to fill the ranks...

 

Bumping an older thread.

I noticed this recent USAF televsion ad, targeting women specifically..

I am an American Airman

The young Captain (fighter pilot) towards the end of the spot...seems very no non-sense, almost bad-ass I must say.
These aren't actors, they're the real deal. Yes they aren't infantry or tank drivers..but I'm still glad they're on our side.
The Captain doesn't look like the type who would hesitate to drop a JDAM on your head if you're a bad guy.

[video=youtube;UeSEjifcLa8][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSEjifcLa8][/video]

 

Just recently saw a cartoon, where one man in a military uniform is sitting on a bed in a barracks. Across from him on another bed is a women also in a military uniform reading a newspaper with a headline regarding women in combat. He holds out his hand for a hand shake and says- "Congratulations, or condolences...whichever."

Logically I don't see why women would want to be in combat. I mean seriously, who in the world WANTS bullets flying at them, when they can be just as useful not having bullets flying at them. Just a funny thought.

 

I don't envision a large turnout of female recruits vying for ground combat jobs. In the field, infantryman go days without showering in close quarter living conditions...but I'm an advocate for giving them the opportunity to try given they are not given special consideration for their gender.

I seem to be part of the minority opinion on this board who supports the notion of women in combat.

 

Well its not that I am trying to not give women special consideration, neither am I trying to be a bias against women in any way. Many women can be extremely strong will and more, it just that naturally they aren't made for combat. Nothing against them, just the way nature goes I suppose.

 

[video=youtube;JYkxCzBszOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYkxCzBszOQ[/video]

 

And you and I are not far apart really.

I do not object to "women in combat" in itself. And there are a great many "combat roles" they do serve in. Air Defense for example is a Combat Arm, and females have served there for decades (when I was downrange, my Battalion CO was a female). And there are a great many others, MPs, pilots (both aircraft and heliopters), I do not even have a problem with females in support roles in most Infantry units. If the Supply NCO in an Army Mechanized Infantry Regiment, that would be fine with me.

But the ones I do obect to is the basic "Combat Arms", where physiological differences (bone mass, bone placement, muscle differences) would place women into positions that would cause more people (them and others) to come home in body bags. I know that in the 1980's the Marines tried a program adding women into the Artillery, and it was a failure. Even the strongest and most fit just could not keep up with the physical demands of th job for hours at a time. God or Nature or Evolution simply did not provide women with the kinds of muscles to do that like men can.

 

Women soldiers have every right to be in combat.

 

Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen Elizabeth II, joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service in February 1945 when she was 18 as an honorary Second Subaltern with the service number of 230873. She trained as a driver and mechanic and was promoted to honorary Junior Commander five months later. Since Pope Benedict XVI stepped down, she is once again the only surviving Head of State today who served in WWII (she became Head of State at the age of just 25 in 1952 and she's still Head of State today at the age of 86). Her husband, Prince Philip, is also a World War II veteran.

Not many people know that, though.

Here are some photos:

 

There are, and will continue to be women in the "combat zone." But being in the combat zone and being in the actual trigger-pulling, infantry scene of battle are two entirely different things.

For example, in Vietnam the whole taco was declared a combat zone. Even sailors floating around 100 miles from shore were in the combat zone and received Bronze Star Medals.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Infantry riflemen and Red Cross donut dollies -- everything else is just support.

 

Women are already in combat on the ground...as trigger pullers in combat support elements that are right up there with combat units...in battle.



Physical strength differences is a valid reason to keep them out of combat units, but please don't condescend to the role they are already playing in combat situations.

Iraq and Afghanistans had/have no delineated frontlines. Support elements often face the same risks...and women serve in those units.