US to allow women in combat roles - Good idea or bad?

seebell · May 15, 2015

Tidewater, I saw an Israeli female tank commander on TV. That is combat is it not?

Why you up so early, Mr, Ancient Ornery?

BTW the commander was female. Not the tank:biggrin:

Tidewater · May 15, 2015

seebell said:
Tidewater, I saw an Israeli female tank commander on TV. That is combat is it not?

I guess it depends on what she was doing, but I would say, yes, she probably drove her tank into hostile fire.
I would just say there is a significant difference between the physical demands of being a tank commander and those of being a Ranger in the 75th Ranger Regiment or a Special Forces soldier serving in Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha.
And even at that, I'd bet that when it comes time to lift up the Merkava main gun rounds and store them in the storage bins, I'd bet she ain't pulling her weight. The men in her crew have to do more work because she is there.
And one other thing, if the tank gets hit and catches fire, and other crew members' survival depend on the tank commander's upper body strength to pull them out of the tank, well, get ready to say kaddish for them.

Why you up so early, Mr, Ancient Ornery?

Got to get up early if you want to get the jump on the libtards.

BTW the commander was female. Not the tank:biggrin:

How could you tell the gender of the tank?

seebell · May 15, 2015

I agree Tidewater. Women can and have served in combat but physical demands probably should preclude some roles.

Isn't the tank called the Queen of Battle? The Israeli tank had a long thing sticking out front. Does a cannon ejaculate shells? Maybe that's eject.

Sorry. The infantry is the "Queen of battle" My apologies. Artillery the King of Battle.

92tide · May 15, 2015

Tidewater said:
How could you tell the gender of the tank?

maybe it was one of these

Tidewater · May 15, 2015

92tide said:
maybe it was one of these

Like.

Tidewater · May 15, 2015

seebell said:
I agree Tidewater. Women can and have served in combat but physical demands probably should preclude some roles.

Isn't the tank called the Queen of Battle? The Israeli tank had a long thing sticking out front. Does a cannon ejaculate shells? Maybe that's eject.

Sorry. The infantry is the "Queen of battle" My apologies. Artillery the King of Battle.

Armor is the "Combat Arm of Decision."
As the French Army saying goes, "Artillery conquers, infantry occupies."

TIDE-HSV · May 15, 2015

Tidewater said:
Armor is the "Combat Arm of Decision."
As the French Army saying goes, "Artillery conquers, infantry occupies."

Of course, that needs to be updated to include a lot more ordnance than just artillery now...

Tidewater · May 15, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
Of course, that needs to be updated to include a lot more ordnance than just artillery now...

True. That motto came out of the French experience in World War I. I'm not sure it applies the same way now.

Tidewater · May 30, 2015

Eight female Ranger School Recycles Fail on their Second Attempt
And therefore the conversation starts that standards must change.

From the article said:
Dempsey recalls being in violent Kunar province in Afghanistan and hiking up to the rugged Pakistan border. Along for the mission was a male first sergeant who was also a Ranger-tabbed Golden Gloves boxer. The unit had to stop for the first sergeant because he needed to rest during the strenuous march. “No one’s going to say that the first sergeant is a deadbeat. We need him, and we’re just going to take a break.”

Okay, well a First Sergeant is an E-8, probably with 15-20 years in the Army. So a Ranger qualified 35-40 year old First Sergeant on a patrol up the hills of Kunar needs to stop for a break, and therefore we must lower standards at Ranger School. I would wager that most patrols in Afghanistan consist of 18-21 year old privates, 20-35 year old NCOs (more at the lower half of that range than the upper end) and 22-25 year old Lieutenants. In other words, it is a young man's game.

Except, the yardstick is combat. What does winning in combat take? A real journalist would have asked what does combat require? Does every patrol include a 35-40 year old First Sergeant? What really does happen on a long range patrol in Afghanistan? Are we developing excess capacity and can we afford to fritter that away in an effort to include women?

Next there is this gem:

This argument is less about gender equity than the firm belief that women can make Ranger battalions better. In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women.

Fine, assign women to the Ranger battalions. The administrative requirement right now is that NCOs and officers assigned to a Ranger battalion need to be Ranger qualified. Changing that is a policy letter from the Chief of Staff of the Army. That does not have anything to do with Ranger School's standards.
I would dispute the premise, however. Ranger battalions now do not do a lot of "talking to local women" right now, because these units do not "own" a piece of ground. Conventional units do that. And guess what, the do have women assigned to them. Ranger units come in when we need to kill (or capture) some folks. The Rangers are not the "hearts and minds" department. They are the "sledgehammer" department.

selmaborntidefan · May 30, 2015

I LMAO when this article was first posted in April after uh ONE meaningful day:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charl...en-on-day-one-of-ranger-school_b_7113226.html

===============
The first integrated class of the course comes after decades of debate over the role of women in the military and whether they should be permitted to serve in direct combat roles, something critics say women should not be allowed to do for a variety of reasons, among them the supposed physical fitness disparity between men and women. So far, it would appear that argument falls flat.

Taking all of this into account, critics have long alleged that few women could make it past the first day, let alone the rest of the course.

So, what happened? Only three women failed the test along with 78 men. Doing the quick math, that means 84.2 percent of women passed... as did 79.5 percent of men.

You read that right. Under the same standards, when gender was not a factor in assessment, more women than men passed Day One of Ranger School.

But what it should demonstrate is the ridiculousness of continuing to state that women are not up to the task when it comes to leading troops in combat
=====================

I thought about Facebook posting it but decided against it. The standards are so low for success in the "let's have gender equality regardless of whether it's real" propagandists that if even ONE woman had passed they would have touted it as "evidence."

Look at the old Billie Jean King-Bobby Riggs match. That's still considered a turning point for equality in the 70s and proving a woman can beat a man. Nobody ever brings up all the other male-female matches, all (to my knowledge) of which entailed the men routing the women pretty handily.

Some things are best left undone and women in Army Ranger school as a social experiment is high on the list if not at the top.

TIDE-HSV · May 30, 2015

I haven't really read the whole thread, but it seems to me that the central issue is muscle mass. Behind muscle mass is, of course, testosterone. Men have more of it, naturally. Of course, there's an overlap at the bottom range for men and the upper range for women, but I'll be surprised if there's enough of an overlap which will allow any woman to qualify, using today's standards. Therefore, as has been said already, the only way to get them in is to lower the standards...

formersoldier71 · May 30, 2015

Tidewater said:
Eight female Ranger School Recycles Fail on their Second Attempt
And therefore the conversation starts that standards must change.

---

Next there is this gem:

There are several gems in that article. Such as:

Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s top officer, made this clear during a breakfast with reporters Thursday. While praising the performance of the women at the Ranger School, he added: “I’m actually fairly adamant about not changing the physical standards.”

What does that mean? Where is the breaking point from "fairly adamant" to "let's do whatever we have to do to ensure that women can pass"?
I think one thing is being lost in all this. All military training is not the same. For example, Basic training. Basic also has standards. Ranger School, SEAL Course, etc are not basic. They don't want the "average", they want the top performers, those who can separate themselves from the "average". They don't want or expect the same success rate that basic has. If they did, they wouldn't hold qualifications as often as they do.

And this gem:

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. "First, we're going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job," he said.

Surely the Sec of the Navy knows if SEAL training has standards and if they're job related.

Tidewater · May 30, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
I haven't really read the whole thread, but it seems to me that the central issue is muscle mass. Behind muscle mass is, of course, testosterone. Men have more of it, naturally. Of course, there's an overlap at the bottom range for men and the upper range for women, but I'll be surprised if there's enough of an overlap which will allow any woman to qualify, using today's standards. Therefore, as has been said already, the only way to get them in is to lower the standards...

It is muscle mass but especially upper body muscle mass and women naturally have less than men. Not all women and all men, but on average. Add to that the weight that Ranger students (and infantrymen in combat) must tote and the list of women who can do it shrinks a lot.

The logic of the Christian Science Monitor journalist is pretty flawed. She cites one officer who notes that lots of men leave the service with back problems and says we should just. Array less weight in combat. Perhaps but infantrymen do not tote weight just for the sake of toting weight. They carry stuff they need. My ruck the first time I went to Iraq held ammo, batteries, water and chow (in that order of priority). And it was heavy.
Then again, the CSM journalist notes that on some missions, units opt not to bring their rucks at all. The implication is that any standard that involves carrying heavy loads is invalid because some u its sometimes do not carry heavy loads in camp at. I can assure you, however, that they are not leaving rucks because they are lazy or tired. They are accepting some tactical risk in exchange for some advantage, probably speed.
I wish people who know next to nothing about this would back away and stop trying to make it "fair." Life isn't fair and in combat, our opponents are working overtime to make things as unfair on our forces as possible. Sometimes the only counterbalancing force for that unfairness is having extremely fit and extremely well-prepared combat forces. If I was a candid IS commander, I'd be saying, "Heck yes, please lower the standards for your infantry, especially your Rangers. They always give us fits when we tangle with them. We'd appreciate anything you can do to make them less effective."

Tidewater · May 30, 2015

formersoldier71 said:
And this gem:

Surely the Sec of the Navy knows if SEAL training has standards and if they're job related.

I think that might not be the right standard. If the service imagine precisely what soldiers will do in combat and train only to that standard, they are going to end up with e wrong people with the wrong qualifications and skills on some future day when the enemy presents us with something we did not foresee (I don't know, like flying planes into skyscrapers). Something outside of the box.
We need to train beyond the minimum and the foreseen. Were you ever too well prepared for an op? I know I was never too well prepared.

TIDE-HSV · May 30, 2015

Tidewater said:
It is muscle mass but especially upper body muscle mass and women naturally have less than men. Not all women and all men, but on average. Add to that the weight that Ranger students (and infantrymen in combat) must tote and the list of women who can do it shrinks a lot.

The logic of the Christian Science Monitor journalist is pretty flawed. She cites one officer who notes that lots of men leave the service with back problems and says we should just. Array less weight in combat. Perhaps but infantrymen do not tote weight just for the sake of toting weight. They carry stuff they need. My ruck the first time I went to Iraq held ammo, batteries, water and chow (in that order of priority). And it was heavy.
Then again, the CSM journalist notes that on some missions, units opt not to bring their rucks at all. The implication is that any standard that involves carrying heavy loads is invalid because some u its sometimes do not carry heavy loads in camp at. I can assure you, however, that they are not leaving rucks because they are lazy or tired. They are accepting some tactical risk in exchange for some advantage, probably speed.
I wish people who know next to nothing about this would back away and stop trying to make it "fair." Life isn't fair and in combat, our opponents are working overtime to make things as unfair on our forces as possible. Sometimes the only counterbalancing force for that unfairness is having extremely fit and extremely well-prepared combat forces. If I was a candid IS commander, I'd be saying, "Heck yes, please lower the standards for your infantry, especially your Rangers. They always give us fits when we tangle with them. We'd appreciate anything you can do to make them less effective."

I was really referring to upper body mass. I'd dare say that some female hurdlers probably rival some males in lower body mass. I've lost some of mine, just from inactivity caused by the prolonged bout of plantar psoriasis and the hip replacement. Even when I had to stay off my feet, I was doing upper body exercises to try and keep up there. However, today, I had to start our cranky (probably should say no-cranky) lawnmower for the first time. I was surprised at how hard the pull on it had become. I managed to get some of my "snap" back by the time I finished the hour-long battle to get it started, but it was enough to make me think that I've got to get back on my resistance routines. Speaking of the lower muscle mass, I have a friend who lives in Leadville, CO, but from here originally, who's back visiting her sister around the corner. She mountain bikes (even in snow and ice) and skis year-around. From the pix on Facebook today, I'd love to equal her lower body muscle mass...

Tidewater · May 30, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
Speaking of the lower muscle mass, I have a friend who lives in Leadville, CO, but from here originally, who's back visiting her sister around the corner. She mountain bikes (even in snow and ice) and skis year-around. From the pix on Facebook today, I'd love to equal her lower body muscle mass...

This week I ran into a woman in the post office. She was hiking the Appalachian Trail (we get that a lot here). She was in her 60s, I'd guess, from here completely grey hair and wrinkles, but she had the calves of a teenager.

And for the preverts here, no she was not hawt.

formersoldier71 · May 30, 2015

Tidewater said:
I think that might not be the right standard. If the service imagine precisely what soldiers will do in combat and train only to that standard, they are going to end up with e wrong people with the wrong qualifications and skills on some future day when the enemy presents us with something we did not foresee (I don't know, like flying planes into skyscrapers). Something outside of the box.
We need to train beyond the minimum and the foreseen. Were you ever too well prepared for an op? I know I was never too well prepared.

No, I agree with you. I probably should have expounded. It goes back to the first part of my post. There may not be a combat requirement to raise and lower a log in tandem with others in the surf while hungry, sleep-deprived and stressed-out. However, I'm sure the object is to develop teamwork under such conditions, and together with whatever else they're doing, to see if they have the leadership, decision-making, etc. required under such conditions. Probably because those conditions can and do exist in their job. In that sense, it is job related.

formersoldier71 · May 30, 2015

Tidewater said:
And for the preverts here, no she was not hawt.

If you had put this sentence at the beginning of your post, I could have skipped the rest.

selmaborntidefan · May 30, 2015

formersoldier71 said:
There are several gems in that article. Such as:

What does that mean? Where is the breaking point from "fairly adamant" to "let's do whatever we have to do to ensure that women can pass"?
I think one thing is being lost in all this. All military training is not the same. For example, Basic training. Basic also has standards. Ranger School, SEAL Course, etc are not basic. They don't want the "average", they want the top performers, those who can separate themselves from the "average". They don't want or expect the same success rate that basic has. If they did, they wouldn't hold qualifications as often as they do.

And this gem:

Surely the Sec of the Navy knows if SEAL training has standards and if they're job related.

Ray Mabus was the governor of Mississippi for four years (1988-1992) and actually served in the US Navy.

The man is so clueless it simply wouldn't surprise me if he DID NOT know anything about the SEALs.

He's also the idiot that was behind naming one US vessel after Chavez and another after Gabby Giffords.....the gun control advocate.

TIDE-HSV · May 30, 2015

Tidewater said:
This week I ran into a woman in the post office. She was hiking the Appalachian Trail (we get that a lot here). She was in her 60s, I'd guess, from here completely grey hair and wrinkles, but she had the calves of a teenager.

And for the preverts here, no she was not hawt.

I've known a lot of thru-hikers. They split along a fault line between 20-somethings who don't have a job/responsibilities yet and recent retirees. I had a friend who did it at 60, right after retiring from AT&T. Yes, that sort of exercise keeps the lower body young. My friend complained of losing his upper body strength...

US to allow women in combat roles - Good idea or bad?

Should women be allowed in combat roles?

Bad idea

About time

Yes, but only if they can meet the same standards as males

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Senior Administrator

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

TideFans Legend

Senior Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!