If I recall correctly (I haven't read the linked article but have read others), a perfect score for males is 20.
US to allow women in combat roles - Good idea or bad?
- Thread starter G-VilleTider
- Start date
Seems like a simple issue to me. Women SHOULD be allowed in any military role, including combat, as men and SHOULD be judged by the same criteria for competence.
At the moment, that doesn't appear to be where the military is headed. Affirmative action, irrespective of qualifications, seems to be the future for women in the military -- it sounds like it's all about achieving the right percentages.
If any of you are wondering why being able to due a pull-up is important, here is why. If you can't do 3 pull-ups of your own body weight, there is no way you are going to be able to pull a fellow soldier or marine out of a busted vehicle when you are both wearing gear and then fire-man carry them to safety. Lowering standards to be more inclusive will only lead to a weaker military with more deaths. But that is results, so it doesn't matter since we are doing it for the "right" reasons right? 
You are absolutely correct. The Combat Fitness Test required testing equipment that was not always available, so it was scrapped in favor of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) which only requires a stopwatch and a flat 2-mile course.
The armed forces need women to flesh out the ranks of Military Occupational Specialities (MOSes or jobs) that are frankly not that demanding physically (admin, intell analyst, some of the non-field medical stuff), to leave the young bucks to do the MOSes that are more demanding physically (infantry, SF, FO, cav/armor, maybe gun bunny in the arty).And sadly, the push seems to be "how can we increase the number of women in the military and in combat arms" instead of "how can we best prepare our soldiers for combat". Its a job opportunity focus, not a combat readiness focus. And I don't see it changing anytime soon, going by formersoldier's last post.
If I were Planetary Commander, I would keep the standard APFT to qualify folks as soldiers, and include MOS-specific tests in order to qualify for the more physically demanding MOSes, and then pay bonuses to those who qualify for the more demanding. We (Americans) don't like this way of doing business because is smacks of elitism and inequality, but some jobs are frankly tougher than others and those who can do them deserve more rewards.
On the other hand, I have no interest in increasing the ranks of women who cannot maintain physical fitness standards (or cannot keep from getting pregnant and therefore useless, albeit temporarily). X & Y chromosomes should not enter into it. Every candidate should meet the appropriate standards or the Army should thank them for trying and send them on their way.
I still maintain that this is a very bad idea, and not only due to physical requirements.
What seems obvious to me is that the motivation for all of this has shifted. It appears to me that the real motivation is not to get women into combat roles so much as it is to develop women for leadership positions after serving in combat roles.
What seems obvious to me is that the motivation for all of this has shifted. It appears to me that the real motivation is not to get women into combat roles so much as it is to develop women for leadership positions after serving in combat roles.
Some will read that story and come away with the conclusion that increasing physical standards for women is the way ahead. Some will come away with the idea that eliminating gender-based exclusions from infantry units will help eliminate or at least reduce sexual assault in the military.
My first time into Iraq, my ruck weighed at least 150 pounds (that was as high as the scales went). Being an old infantryman, I can tell the authors categorically that a female in an infantry platoon who cannot carry her share of the load and makes others carry more to make up for her inability, will be the object of contempt, derision and savage verbal abuse, as would a male soldier who couldn't carry his load.
Sorry but it is hard for me to believe you "carried" a 150lbs ruck. I do not disagree with your position but your claim seems exaggerated. When I parachuted into Iraq our plan was to self sustain for 1 week. I was carrying a full packing list with 4 HE mortar rounds, an additional basic load of 5.56 (210 rounds), and 200 rounds of 7.62. My pack weighed out right near 83 lbs and it was the heaviest I carried in my 24 years.
We weren't humping far, but where I was going we couldn't call back to the company trains and get resupplied. We were alone and unafraid and we were planning on being there a while. Whatever we might need, we had to carry in ourselves. That weight consisted mostly of ammo (triple basic load), water, PRC-104 radios, batteries, chow and hide site materials. That weight does not include our "go to heck" spare ruck which was also had to carry and which held a PRC-70, a five gallon water can and a case of MREs. We cached that ruck on infil.
As for the ruck weight being exaggerated, the only reason I know the weight is the commander ordered the rucks be weighed before we left. The scales were those "hang from the ceiling" types, with a S-hook at the bottom. I threw my ruck on those scales and it slammed to the bottom, not bouncing a bit. The scales only went to 150, so my ruck was in excess of that.
The social experimenters will be along shortly to suggest that the standard is flawed and order the USMC to lower its standards for females in the interest of "social justice."
Marines are less willing to waffle on standards than the Army IMO. Ranger School experimentation will be starting soon. This should be fun.
Didn't know that, about Ranger School.
http://www.army.mil/article/133641
No waffling. Maybe.
Which means their initial PT test looks like this:
49 push-ups in 2 minutes
59 sit-ups in 2 minutes
5-mile run in under 40 minutes
6 pull-ups (palm in)
http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/StudentInformation.html
Last edited:
If the standards stay the same, female candidates have effectively zero chance of making it through that course.
In the 1970s, a female JAG officer put in a packet to go to the Special Forces Qualification Course. When her packet was declined, she asked why. When she was told it was because she was female, she noted (correctly, at the time) that the regs do not require applicants to be male. So she got in.
And consistently failed to meet the standard at every, single, physical event. When the instructors refused to pass her because of her failures, they were relieved until the Army found someone who valued his career more than his ethics. So, despite failing every physical test, she graduated. Special Forces soldiers (combat vets from Vietnam, mostly) present at the graduation threw their green berets on stage in protest. The female JAG officer, having made her point, resigned her commission and went into civilian law practice, leaving carnage in her wake.
We'll see if Ranger School has any better luck maintaining standards in the face of political pressure.
Depends on what level. I know the average soldier does not want standards lowered, however tje average soldied does not make these decisions
Is your name Ray?
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...new-mos-specific-pt-tests.html?ESRC=army-a.nl
Interested to see what they come up with.
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 16
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4