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

Silverback · Jun 2, 2015

As a former instructor and member of 3-75, I think the standards will determine who should serve and who should not. The problem is that when enough people fail to meet the standards the standards get questioned. The question "Why is the minimum standard the standard?" is a very complex and difficult question to answer. If the answer is not objective and immediate the standard will be attacked. Case in point, part of the Combat Water Survival Test (CWST) was the "Ditch Equipment" event. The standard was for the subject to completely submerge and remove equipment and drop the weapon while submerged. Seems straight forward enough....until a grader gives a student a no-go because they elbow broke the plane of the water befor the equipment was off. While the student met the spirit of the event he violates the standard. That is when hard questions start getting asked.

Silverback · Jun 2, 2015

If you want to know why the ditch equipment station exists watch the beginning of Saving Private Ryan.

TIDE-HSV · Jun 2, 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 just had a visit from a friend whom I believe could probably pass. She's a PT by profession. Her dad lives in the neighborhood and she lives in Leadville, CO (she's says there's almost a surplus of oxygen down here). She gets in town to see him on his birthday every year. She came around to say hello and, being a PT and knowing about my hip, she was determined to examine me and prescribed several exercises for a minor ITB problem I've developed. My wife had left earlier and said the UPS had dropped the new grill (going back to charcoal) in the carport. As Sonja left, she said "Let me get that box for you." I told her I could do it. She insisted. Thankfully, the handtruck was in the carport, so I persuaded her to put it on there. We moved it up the driveway to the small porch, with her taking most of the load. There are three steps up to the porch. When we got to the porch, she picked up the box and put it on the porch, all 65lbs of it. Yep, she could probably make it. She's about 5'11" and weighs about 160 or so, with no fat at all. (And, for those of you whose minds are dwelling in your usual place, she's only moderately "hawt," but she doesn't swing our way at all...)

Tidewater · Jun 2, 2015

Silverback said:
If you want to know why the ditch equipment station exists watch the beginning of Saving Private Ryan.

For a serious look at this issue (which has been brewing for a while), I suggest SLA Marshall's Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation.
SLAM had some problems, but he makes a good argument. On D-Day, soldiers were toting their winter coats, sort of "just in case" it got cold, three days worth of chow, etc. My own feeling is that soldiers on the first wave at Omaha and possibly Utah should have been wearing UDT shorts and carrying an M1 carbine, a bandoleer of ammo and a few hand grenades and wearing Chuck Taylor canvas shoes, so they could move quickly.
We've all probably seen the footage of the soldiers walking up the beach at Utah carrying loads like pack mules, and one of the soldiers slowly trundling up the beach gets shot by one of the Germans and crumples into a heap. Those guys should have been going in light enough to sprint up that beach. A change of dry clothes could have been brought to them in subsequent waves, but the first wave needed to be light and nimble on their feet.
SLAM's thesis is that staff officers loaded the soldiers up like pack mules because they could not have guaranteed when the next resupply was going to get to them, so they carried way too much stuff. The same prevarication by staff officers planning subsequent ops also loaded the infantry down, out of caution. After all, the staff officers weren't going to have to carry the individual loads the infantrymen did, so why not? This thinking got a lot of infantrymen killed on D-Day (and thereafter).

TIDE-HSV · Jun 2, 2015

Tidewater said:
For a serious look at this issue (which has been brewing for a while), I suggest SLA Marshall's Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation.
SLAM had some problems, but he makes a good argument. On D-Day, soldiers were toting their winter coats, sort of "just in case" it got cold, three days worth of chow, etc. My own feeling is that soldiers on the first wave at Omaha and possibly Utah should have been wearing UDT shorts and carrying an M1 carbine, a bandoleer of ammo and a few hand grenades and wearing Chuck Taylor canvas shoes, so they could move quickly.
We've all probably seen the footage of the soldiers walking up the beach at Utah carrying loads like pack mules, and one of the soldiers slowly trundling up the beach gets shot by one of the Germans and crumples into a heap. Those guys should have been going in light enough to sprint up that beach. A change of dry clothes could have been brought to them in subsequent waves, but the first wave needed to be light and nimble on their feet.
SLAM's thesis is that staff officers loaded the soldiers up like pack mules because they could not have guaranteed when the next resupply was going to get to them, so they carried way too much stuff. The same prevarication by staff officers planning subsequent ops also loaded the infantry down, out of caution. After all, the staff officers weren't going to have to carry the individual loads the infantrymen did, so why not? This thinking got a lot of infantrymen killed on D-Day (and thereafter).

Hasn't stopped till this day, IMO...

dvldog · Jun 3, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
Hasn't stopped till this day, IMO...

Concur. I am amazed when I see some of the loads the troops are carrying today when we command the skies and can generally establish and defend ground LOCs. Especially from the early 90s on, there was a big push to be more mobile and lighten the load. Everything had to be lighter/smaller/faster. Today, it appears the lighter/smaller/faster has been successful but they just keep piling the stuff on until they offset w/sheer quantity/volume.

Tidewater · Jun 4, 2015

dvldog said:
Concur. I am amazed when I see some of the loads the troops are carrying today when we command the skies and can generally establish and defend ground LOCs. Especially from the early 90s on, there was a big push to be more mobile and lighten the load. Everything had to be lighter/smaller/faster. Today, it appears the lighter/smaller/faster has been successful but they just keep piling the stuff on until they offset w/sheer quantity/volume.

When we were issued the Vector internal frame rucksack (bigger than a large ALICE), we joked, "Great! Now we can carry 80 pounds of lightweight gear."

dvldog · Jun 4, 2015

Tidewater said:
When we were issued the Vector internal frame rucksack (bigger than a large ALICE), we joked, "Great! Now we can carry 80 pounds of lightweight gear."

Well said! Troops always have a way of getting to the real nitty gritty.

Tidewater · Jun 4, 2015

dvldog said:
Well said! Troops always have a way of getting to the real nitty gritty.

80 pounds of lightweight gear does not weigh you down that much, because, you know, it's lightweight gear.

bamacon · Jun 4, 2015

Bamaro said:
If women want to go into combat the same as men and can handle the physical aspects of it, why not?

That's just it, they can't. This is certainly causing a split in the military in opinions too. Ranger School has said 100% it will not change the standards but the Navy SEALS leadership is intimating that it may now be open to the idea of different standards. The word "standard" in and of itself has a meaning for a reason. If you change it willy nilly then you don't have one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

formersoldier71 · Jul 10, 2015

The three remaining women attending Army Ranger School as part of an assessment of how female soldiers should be more fully integrated into the service have passed a major hurdle, completing the first of three segments in the course and moving on to its Mountain Phase.

Army officials announced the result Friday, saying in a news release that 158 men and all three women will move on to tackle the next portion of Ranger School at Camp Merrill in Dahlonega, Ga., about 65 miles north of Atlanta, beginning Saturday. It was the third and final attempt for the remaining women, who had failed the initial Darby Phase at Fort Benning, Ga., twice before. A total of 362 men began the course with them June 21.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clear-major-hurdle-make-it-to-mountain-phase/
44 percent of the men pass phase 1. The women, all on their final attempt, go 3 for 3.

81usaf92 · Jul 10, 2015

If there are same standards Im all for it, but modifing special forces and infantry standards for women will do more harm than good.

Tidewater · Jul 10, 2015

formersoldier71 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clear-major-hurdle-make-it-to-mountain-phase/
44 percent of the men pass phase 1. The women, all on their final attempt, go 3 for 3.

If they do not modify the standards, then good for them.
they ain't near finished though. Heck the are just being allowed to go to Dahlonega. The TVD ain't no easy hump with all that gear.

Tide1986 · Jul 10, 2015

formersoldier71 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clear-major-hurdle-make-it-to-mountain-phase/
44 percent of the men pass phase 1. The women, all on their final attempt, go 3 for 3.

Out of curiosity, do men get three attempts to pass?

Tidewater · Jul 11, 2015

Tide1986 said:
Out of curiosity, do men get three attempts to pass?

Sometimes. It depends on the unit. If they can afford to do without you, you may get a second or even a third go. Most units say, "Hey, bub, you got a swing of the bat. It did not turn out the way you wanted, come back to the unit and get back to your job."

My real question is whether they are enforcing non-gender-normed standards. It is easier to hide than then one might think. Once a Ranger patrol starts humping up the Tennessee Valley Divide, the loads are heavy and the climb is straight up the hill, not some gradual grade. If the school lightens the load of the female students a bit, who's going to know, right? If the political leaders have told the school that they really want a female grad, that would be how you do it. Everyone carried 70 pounds of stuff, she carries 40. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Silverback · Jul 13, 2015

I have heard from active Instructors that all Rangers are being held to the same standard. The Mountain phase is a soul crushing experience!

Tidewater · Jul 13, 2015

Silverback said:
I have heard from active Instructors that all Rangers are being held to the same standard. The Mountain phase is a soul crushing experience!

It's been a while, but I do remember my RIs humping the TVD with me. Man, that was not fun.

I'll relate a story from the Mountain Phase. We were humping along a ridge with a series of spurs running perpendicular to the main ridge. One spur led to our objective. We passed a raspberry bush on the ridge and the RI made a point of telling up not to eat any raspberries, or we'd get put out of the course. Well, it turned out later that the guy on point missed his "spur" and we had to backtrack a bit. When we went by the raspberry bush, there was not a berry on that bush, but nobody had eaten any (at least not that we admitted). The RI noticed and looked a little bit miffed, but he had not caught any of us eating the berries.

92tide · Jul 13, 2015

Silverback said:
I have heard from active Instructors that all Rangers are being held to the same standard. The Mountain phase is a soul crushing experience!

that's the phase they do in n. georgia at camp merrill (sp), correct? that is some nasty terrain up there.

Silverback · Jul 13, 2015

Al A Bama · Jul 13, 2015

Silverback said:
I have heard from active Instructors that all Rangers are being held to the same standard. The Mountain phase is a soul crushing experience!

How has rigid Ranger training changed over the years other than possible modernization of weaponry. I know someone who was a Ranger in the early 1950's. Just trying to picture what that person had to go through surviving the training.

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

1st Team

1st Team

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!