Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

I repeat there are ZERO women capable of carrying 100+ pound rucksack over several miles on rough or even flat terrain. They have tried it and no woman has come close. As numerous studies have shown women are far more likely to develop muscle and joint problems including micro fractures, torn tendons and all the rest under normal operating conditions. If the MOS doesn't include stressful physical activity then I have no problem with it but I refuse to condone any actions that put soldiers lives at risk just so that some people can play social justice warrior. This is the military where lives depend on the people next to each other. Put the women in the fighter jets, helicopters and whatever else doesn't include running around on the ground with tons of gear and requiring physical strength and stamina. Women do not have it compared to men.

Last year after years of trying the Army finally managed to get 5 female candidates out of an initial 80 for the Rangers after giving them additional attempts that none of the males ever received. Guess what happened to them? They are all washed out......again.

 

Ok, though we agree for the most part, let me correct a few things. Males and females are not required to carry over 100lbs rucks for quals. It's usually around 65 tops unless you're an 11charlie. Also, I pulled security with a squad of MPs and a few were women. We were transportation security for truck drivers. These ladies were macked and stacked and did a good job. Let's not over exaggerate the requirements for standard deployments. But we do agree, women have much weaker bone structures and I think the standards for men and women should always be the same.

 

Its over 100 for both the army and the marines. Some of that is the armor protection as well. I am fine with female MPs as they don't carry around as much gear as soldiers going out on missions. The marines already tested this theory as did numerous other countries including Canada and they all found that women far under perform compared to men when it involves requiring strenght and endurance. Certain positions are much better for women and in fact women have advantages over men in MPs because they are better at diffusing situations as shown my police studies. They have advantages when it comes to flying fighters because their brain and heart are closer together which allows them to handle g forces better than men and there was something about women being able to track multiple targets better than men. Put the women in those roles where they do have advantages and keep the men on the roles where they have the advantage. If I woke up tomorrow and they announced all fighter pilots were now going to be female because they showed marked superiority in that role I wouldn't bat an eye. I have one and only one concern and that is putting the best people in the most effective positions because everyone's lives depends on the ones surrounding them.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...ne-corps-look-lighten-load-combat-troops.html

"Helmets, armor plates and plate-carrying vests account for about 27 pounds of the 119 pounds carried by combat arms soldiers and 117 pounds by Marines, which is nearly a quarter of the load that also includes weapons and ammunition, food and water, communications equipment and other items, the report stated. Russell said it is unclear when that weight peaked."

 

This is speaking purely on patrols. I couldn't carry those loads every single day, much like women can't. This is biased. Being a leader in the Army now, I enjoy playing devils advocate. Tell me, as an infantryman, how often throughout a career are you carrying 100+ on a given ruck or patrol?

 

Sorry the rum was talking (I'm on vacation). You're right women have to train and operate accordingly with that weight in training and unit missions.

 

Who is going to tell the women what to do if there are no men in the unit ?

 

Can you show me proof that soldiers were required to do so in Iraq or Afghanistan? With such weight loads on their backs they would be easy pickings for snipers.

 

Four excerpts:

This issue was brought to the forefront recently when retired Army Col. Ellen Haring wrote an opinion piece for the Marine Corps Times in which she was critical of the requirement for Marine Corps infantry officers to carry a load of up to 152 pounds for more than nine miles, at a twenty-minute-per-mile pace...



How did we get here?

From the ancient Greek hoplite all the way up through the American Civil War infantryman, the overall weight carried by a foot soldier changed very little, holding steady at about forty pounds. Infantrymen didn’t see a significant jump in their load until the beginning of the twentieth century. During World War I infantry loads increased by 50 percent, up to over sixty pounds. World War II saw those loads increase again, to 80–100 pounds, depending on the type of weapon system the soldier carried.

Soldier loads stayed pretty constant from World War II through Vietnam. In the last thirty years, however, loads have skyrocketed. During the operation in Grenada soldier loads went unchecked by leaders, resulting in soldiers carrying over 120 pounds. In their paper Load Carriage in Military Operations, Joseph Knapik and Katy Reynolds quoted one soldier in Grenada: “My rucksack weighed 120 pounds. I would get up and rush for 10 yards, throw myself down and couldn’t get up. I’d rest for 10 or 15 minutes, struggle to get up, go 10 more yards, and collapse. After a few rushes, I was physically unable to move and I am in great shape.”

The story hasn’t changed much since then...



The British Army has had similar problems. In 2011, a senior British Army officer wrote that the Taliban refer to British soldiers as “donkeys” who move in a tactical “waddle” because of the weight they carried in Afghanistan, which averaged 110 pounds. The officer continued, explaining that “our infantry find it almost impossible to close with the enemy because the bad guys are twice as mobile.”...



What should a combat load weigh?

How much should a soldier carry? Many studies have been done on this subject by both the Army and Marine Corps. The Marine Corps Combat Development Command’s 2003 Combat Load Report cites S.L.A. Marshall’s book Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation as the go-to source on the subject. Marshall concludes that a soldier could optimally carry 33 percent of his body weight. The same Marine Corps study determined the average weight of a Marine male was 169 pounds and the average female’s was 130 pounds. This would put their combat loads at 56 pounds and 42 pounds, respectively...


Full article -> https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/

 

Read my previous posts. I posted a military times article talking about how the army and marines are trying to reduce the 100+ pounds that soldiers currently carry. Or you can just take the five seconds and google it yourself there are many articles on injuries suffered by modern soldiers increasing load out.

 

Wait - that's a supposed training or testing matter. I'm asking about actual combat situation.

 

If you can't be bothered to do some simple googling or read the article I posted then **** off.

Literally the top two links when you google it.

https://www.npr.org/2011/04/10/134421473/weight-of-war-soldiers-heavy-gear-packs-on-pain

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/

 

it says 60-100 lbs

it does not say 150 lbs like you people said earlier

 

Read. It says 119 pounds.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...ne-corps-look-lighten-load-combat-troops.html

"Helmets, armor plates and plate-carrying vests account for about 27 pounds of the 119 pounds carried by combat arms soldiers and 117 pounds by Marines, which is nearly a quarter of the load that also includes weapons and ammunition, food and water, communications equipment and other items, the report stated. Russell said it is unclear when that weight peaked."

The NPR one says 60-100. Either way soldiers have to much gear and if men can't carry it without injury then women definitely cannot carry it without injury if they can carry it at all.

The NPR one states...

"The heavy loads shouldered over months of duty contribute to the chronic pain suffered by soldiers like Spc. Joseph Chroniger, who deployed to Iraq in 2007."

 

Good. Then if men can't carry that weight, then let's not bother having ground troops of either gender.

Send all troops home - let those overseas people fight their own battles.

 

Damn! We ought to get some mules or maybe even motor vehicles for our troops. Maybe we can buy some good used vehicles at the auto auctions or something. Moving troops by vehicles and other mechanized transport should be considered by our military. Candidly, I thought we already had that. Helicopters and other aircraft too. I didn't know we were marching our troops from landing ships for hundreds of millions each carrying over 100 pounds and having to bring along everything they might possibly need to weeks or even months without supply.

 

Studies also have shown women can withstand more pain and still remain functional, plus have more efficient metabolism - meaning needed less food and water per activity. This is believed due to evolution in regards to childbirth (pain) and both pregnancy and childcare - (less food and water needed in shortage).

The Marine we know who as an on-foot extended patrols of long distances, said once out of sight they'd hide a lot of what they were supposed to carry and pick it up on the way back. So there is the question of are 110 pound rack sacks carried ASAP over long distances really necessary? I mean, we do have trucks, Hummers (now the new things), and helicopters for resupply and support - plus transportation.

That leads to how relevant - as in how often - is being able to run a long distance with a 110 pack employed by our military now - and how important is that overall? To most men on these topics it is 100% what every military action involves and it is the only thing that matters. Actually, we should just eliminate all of the military but the infantry and increase its size because that is all that ever in involved in combat roles.

A female we know has been in combat in 4 theaters of combat, probably killed more enemy than all vets on this thread combined, and has come under enemy fire by small arms, mortars and missiles on numerous occasions. But run 20 miles with a 110 lb ruck sack as fast as some bulky guy who need massive amounts of calories and water for his size, makes a big target and has an IQ of 93? Probably not.

I think it is because ground forces infantry and Marines are who the military least value as individuals and on whom they spend the least, their egos then have to be the most stroked because otherwise it has no prestige. Indeed their lives and sacrifices are important and should be honored. However, the military is not even kinda-sorta-maybe designed around them anymore. Most will have NO involvement in military actions now, even major ones. When we will put large numbers of ground troops into combat in the future is NEVER.

What might put into combat in large numbers is artillery rounds, missiles, bombs, drones and other aircraft. Why send ground forces to kill all the enemy over their, when they can be killed with virtual no risk to any of our people by just destroying the entire area completely or precisely - but on a large scale? For occupations we need infantry and Marines to mostly act as cops once an area taken. But mostly we don't want to occupy territory. We have learned that is a trap impossible to almost ever leave.

 

It also is notable it is just about women. Requirements have already been downgraded or are left downgraded for ethnic and racial reasons. The height requirement lower for Latinos and Orientals. The strength requirements are built around white men, not black men. As I pointed out, the standard is not nor has it ever been about ultimate fighting capabilities. It has been about excluding women and declaring where they are genetically superior is therefore irrelevant because we can'd decide no men can be in combat units.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the last part.

 

Oh for **** sake now you are arguing that women make BETTER soldiers? All those ancient societies and pretty much every society throughout history apparently got it all wrong.

 

China and other Asian countries have used women in combat for thousands of years thru today. Nor are they the only ones.

 

So now you are claiming that China had millions of women going around conquering competing dynasties? Just keep digging that hole deeper.

 

You do realize that this means you've lost the argument?

 

Since I've never heard this thesis that height and strength standards are based on ethnicity, you wouldn't mind documenting that would you?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235960/

I'd have to do a lot of looking to find variance was done for Latinos as that tended to be shrouded of course. Notice the huge changes over time from a minimum of 5' 6" down to 5'. Curiously, men on average were shorter in 1802 than in 1944.

 

Chinese dynasties lasted as long as over 500 years and China has existed as a country for over 3,500 years. NO European country can make such a claim - all which did not use women in combat best we know. Just keep digging that hole deeper.

Trivia: Most people believe Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a witch or as a heretic. That is false. She was burned at the stake for wearing men's clothing, which she had on the urging of guards to better allow her to defend against rape in prison. That a woman lead armed forces that defeated the British male officers in battle was so humiliating as to be unbearable.