Women In Combat-Lowered Standards A Threat?

[SASless]

When the USMC and US Army were told by Congress that Women would have to be accepted in all Military Occupational Specialties....including Combat Arms....any voiced concern that standards might be lowered to accommodate Women....those critics were crucified by the Feminists outside the Military who were pushing the agenda.

As there have been no successful female graduates from any USMC Officer Infantry Platoon Leader course to date....perhaps that is an indicator of the maintenance of some standard.

This article makes one wonder however......

Corps postpones pullups for women, cites potential risks | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131118/NEWS/311180039/Corps-postpones-pullups-women-cites-potential-risks)

For you Nobs that habitually whine about the lack of Aviation content.....please to recall every US Marine regardless of rank or job is first trained as an Infantry Rifleman.

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess,

While same tests are required to be passed, no problem . . .

We had a short reality TV programme, ran for 2-3 series, a few years back. It put contestants through SAS selection using ex-SAS and had a doctor present too. Now I have no idea if the process was 100% true to reality but it was interesting. Guys and gals were crossed out left, right and centre.

Because we have strict gun laws in this country there were issues with civilians running around with SLRs so one series at least was set overseas in Borneo or some such. The last man standing was a slip of a girl. She maintained moral leadership and fortitude to the end.

As I say, only a TV series so I don't know how long it lasted or how realistic it was but it was fascinating.

[500N]

PN

On you tube is the full two episodes of an Australian SAS Selection course
which is well worth watching. Like you said, they get struck off left, right
and centre.

[barnstormer1968]

PN

Nowhere near as harsh, and with much longer rest periods in between exercises.

The upside was that my friend got a good deal of cash selling the production company the uniforms and gear for the programmes :)

The other main difference is the same as military v civilian parachuting. The programme was the end of the matter, and it was only make believe. To do it for real was only the start of things, and life would be more serious after, and more risky.

[Ken Scott]

For you Nobs that habitually whine about the lack of Aviation content.....

SASless: rather aggressive & at the same time defensive....... I suggest you don't enter the arena if you can't play nicely!

As to the nub of the thread it's the way of the world, you can't restrict access on the basis of gender but the standards set exclude most of one gender so you have to adjust said standards to make the system 'fairer'. Fortunately few ladies would be attracted to the teeth combat arms & the few that are would, to misquote Wellington: 'don't know what they do to the enemy but the certainly frighten me'.

[500N]

Fairer ?

Tell that to people who's backsides are on the line.

All well and good if they can keep up but if not and your arse gets shot,
who then cops the blame for it being fairer ?

[Eclectic]

Women are evolutionary engineered to protect their children.
This makes them far more aggressive than men when cornered.

[500N]

Men don't need a reason to kill, we just do it,
all the mil do is refine it.

[NutLoose]

There was a programme on last night about the Royal Vet Corp and their sniffer dogs, part of a series it is following them through training and on that they were saying the females ( who are in the majority) have to be equally fit. Fitness is a major element as they are expected to deploy in the field in Afghanistan with their explosive dogs alongside the Paras etc, so need to match that fitness level.

[SASless]

Nutty,

What are the Physical Standards for Women in the British Military? Are they exactly the same as for Men? Tote the same Ruck, run just as fast, do as many Press Ups, Pull Ups?

The US Military use different standards and in some branches different exercises for Men and Women.

The question is not about Women in Combat.....but rather will the Standards be lessened or ignored to accomplish that.

If the Standards are lessen and nothing bad happens then should we consider lessening the standards for Men as well?

If we do....where does that lead us....to a less capable military?

[500N]

But it might not show up in "black and white".

Things might take longer to do and although not in the category of "bad happens", it can compound other things on a mission.

[Ken Scott]

What are the Physical Standards for Women in the British Military? Are they exactly the same as for Men? Tote the same Ruck, run just as fast, do as many Press Ups, Pull Ups?


In the RAF the fitness test standards for women aged 17 - 35 are slightly less than those required for men aged 50 - 54.

No, I don't understand how that makes sense either. The day before I retire I have to be able to run more then a female on the day she joins.

Does it affect their ability to do their job? I don't think so, as most of the jobs in the RAF don't require the same physical ability as frontline infantry, for example, and most of the females can easily exceed the minimum standards anyway, but it does permit some patently unmilitary looking ladies to serve.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

SASless,

I've fairly recently returned from a deployment in Afghanistan which demonstrated how this issue can be dealt with in a sensible way. My unit was tri-service, all ranks (and ages!) and contained both males and females. During training we were required to pass our annual fitness tests (box-ticking admin) according to age/gender/cap badge norms, tests which were perfectly appropriate to peace time requirements but less so for dismounted close combat ops in Afghanistan.

Our pre-deployment training therefore had one set of absolute output standards irrespective of age, gender, arm or service, rank or any other of the usual factors, standards which were specifically designed to prepare us for our close combat role in theatre. Consequently, all of our work-up training was designed to enable us to (progressively in order to avoid training injuries as much as possible) meet the required standard prior to deployment. Not everybody progressed at the same speed and often an individual would require additional work in certain areas (ie upper body strength for the females, local muscular endurance for old timers like me) but when the tests came a pass was a pass and a fail was a fail, no excuses.

My replacement failed to pass the tests due to injury and didn't deploy, a bugger for me as it meant an even more extended tour but I wouldn't have had it any other way, a correctly calculated set of pass/fail criteria (enabled by a fit for purpose training regime) should be exactly that - no exeptions. I was incredibly proud that personnel from an incredibly broad set of backgrounds performed so well in role, especially so my smaller personnel (male and female) who would carry a large percentage of their own body weight in kit and equipment over long distances in stifling heat. One of my officers was 50kg wet through but she routinely patrolled for hours in the heat of an Afghan summer carry 40kg+. She was a credit to herself and the training regime that had adequately prepared her for her role and a chain of command which only concerned itself with producing an individual able to perform irrespective of gender.

MB

[SASless]

Scott,

We are talking front line infantry here....not box stackers at a warehouse.

MB's account is as good as one could ask for in defining the issues i questioned.

The secret to success seems to be setting a proper standard that is mission focussed, train to meet that standard, maintain that standard, and require the standard be met.

Any deviation from that would suggest a possible failure down the line when it matters most and costs lives, limbs, and mission accomplishment.

[mad_jock]

SASless in my limited experience in a none combat arm which tends to be up there a lot of the time.

The units tend to have there own policy's about who they would accept.

For instance The Royal engineers would make men and women do a bridge decking plate run and if you passed you were in. Some women did pass it but you wouldn't want one of them to take a fancy to you.

I have been attached to other units that said that you had to be able to lift the spare wheel of a vehicle from horizontal to vertical to be able to drive it.

But even years ago in my experience it was a level testing environment and you either made the grade or you didn't. Age, rank, sex, sexual preference didn't make a difference. And there was more that a few "What the :mad: do you think you are playing at sir" and red faces after testing sessions. Serves them right for dodging he training sessions. The sub's where in general were ok but some of the field ranks struggled.

One particular loggie WO1 had a particularly unpleasant 4 months being turned from a lard arse fat :mad: into what the CO expected of one of his solders, HQ company or not. He did say post GW1 that he was glad he had forced into it.

[Ken Scott]

We are talking front line infantry here....not box stackers at a warehouse.


Yes, but those are the standards for all the RAF except for the RAF Regiment, including aircrew..... not just 'box stackers'. As I said, they're the minimum but as a baseline I think there's too great a gender discrepancy there.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Quite a typical post from a former US military man. Of all those most upset by this sort of open, frank, honest, forward-looking discussion, it is the former US military male who is most offended IME.

I would say that the 'pure infantry' ops have been in the tiny minority in recent years. With comms requirements, countermeasures, medical, interpreters, dog handlers etc all on the ground and in the mix, the tactical commander is looking more at the capabilities required to execute the operation rather than the number of men who can pass a single test.

Looking at what technology gives now and what it could do in the future. Current patrols carry as much in batteries as they do in ammunition. Their support is with them, not remote. The higher pay grades of the world are discussing autonomous weapons systems.

You talk as if there is a standard that should be forever set in stone and never questioned. Why not? Whether I agree with the standards or not, they sould be brought out, dusted off and viewed in the current context (but not 'the' war - that would be a mistake). If we didn't challenge the status quo there would be more cavalry charges, women would not be able to vote and the USA would still be a colony. Amongst many other possibilities.

[500N]

"I would say that the 'pure infantry' ops have been in the tiny minority in recent years. With comms requirements, countermeasures, medical, interpreters, dog handlers etc all on the ground and in the mix, the tactical commander is looking more at the capabilities required to execute the operation rather than the number of men who can pass a single test."

Which means everyone else has to come up to a / the standard not lower it.

At the end of the day, regardless of who is with you, a firefight is a firefight
conducted by mostly Inf. It is at this point that lowered standards might
show through.

As Mahogany pointed out, the standards can be passed and maintained
with very good examples.

"Current patrols carry as much in batteries as they do in ammunition."
Weights are getting heavier, not lighter so why would you lower the
requirement ?

[SASless]

Hincap.....you are showing your hind end here.

One....I am anything but typical.

I did not say the standards should be set in stone.

I did question whether standards should be considered for appropriateness but I also reminded of the importance of getting it right...for the right reasons.

Political lCorrectness is not ever going to be the right reason to alter Military Standards.

Stop your Yank Bashing.....it is out of fashion here.

[melmothtw]

For you Nobs that habitually whine about the lack of Aviation content.....

Here's some aviation content for you SASLess...

Night Witches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches)

[Mr C Hinecap]

Weights are getting heavier, not lighter so why would you lower the
requirement ?

No. Weights are now getting lighter. It is the balance of equipment and technology that has changed. No longer is a patrol 'blokes, guns, ammo, a radio' but a series of carefully-planned capabilities that provide far more to the commander. Technology changes things, so standards need to be regularly reviewed. As for 'everyone coming up to a standard' - it wasn't the case for recent ops - why change it up if it isn't a problem?

I've never said that political correctness should drive anything. However, some people calling something political correctness should not prevent it being looked at. I wasn't Yank bashing. The American forces I worked with were far more accepting and forward-looking than many Brits I worked with. Conversely, the retired US military have always been far more entrenched in their views than most of the retired Brits I have met.

[SASless]

Melm....

The article refers to some Women who disguised themselves as Men....which has changed somewhat in modern times.:E


But... a very good article on Women in the Russian Military over the years.

We had at least one Woman do that during our War Between the States.

Women have been combatants ever since there was War i guess....so that is not a new concept.

Russia's Great War and Revolution (http://russiasgreatwar.org/media/military/women_soldiers.shtml)

[melmothtw]

Goes back further than that... Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica)

;)

[anotherthing]

Did anyone read the article? It says that in phase two, due to implemented in Jan 2014 will state that both male and females must carry out 3 pull ups to pass...

In the RM, it is 8 pullups for Potential RM Recruits and 16 for Potential (RM) Officer Recruits. That's before being allowed to go on with the recruitment process.

Is the article stating only three are required really correct?

[SASless]

USMC PFT Score Charts - Military Fitness - Military.com (http://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness-requirements/usmc-pft-charts)


OOORAH!

[Eric T Cartman]

SASless

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo354/oldbloke60/HOOYAH.png

Hoofing ! ;)

[SASless]

In my time in the Army as a Warrant Officer...."Whatever!" would have been closer to our response! ;)

That was long before the current "Hooah!" thing.

[TheWestCoast]

This week, to make us feel tougher, let's laugh at:

a) Arabs scared to jump out of a plane
b) President Obama's foreign-sounding name
c) Women
d) something else Fox New Channel recommends
(check one)

:rolleyes:

[SASless]

The same line exists here as in the thread in Jetblast.....and we know which side you trod on.

[500N]

"(check one)"

Why just one ? :O

[anotherthing]

SASless

cheers for the link to the USMC score sheet. Makes more sense though I'm still a little surprised that there is such a 'hoo haa' over standards dropping if 'only' three pull ups (which is what the report specifically relates to) is a qualifying score (I appreciate that if people got the minimum on every discipline then they wouldn't accrue enough points to pass the test).

Three seems awfully low and hardly worth bothering about... anyone, male or female, with a modicum of fitness should be able to do three IMHO, thus making that benchmark pointless.

Why bother including it at all?

And no, this is not a pi55ing competition between the USMC and RM, it is a genuine question/opinion.

[Cows getting bigger]

I would never pick a fight with my wife. Nuff said. :ouch:

[Heathrow Harry]

If physical fitness is the determinant for combat we should only recruit Ethiopians, Kenyans and Jamaicans................. they're the ones that win the Gold medals (oh yes - and Lance Armstrong of course)

[anotherthing]

Being able to run is not, on it's own, a guide to the physical fitness required for infantry style combat.

Ethiopians and Kenyans might be able to run long distances quickly, but they wouldn't be able to do so with a pack on.

Hence why the USMC et al use a range of tests to determine combat fitness

[NutLoose]

Though some US troops are resorting to the hoover to get passed fit

Troops Use Liposuction To Pass Body Fat Test (http://news.sky.com/story/1160757/troops-use-liposuction-to-pass-body-fat-test)

[SASless]

Right after my Active Duty Service I joined the National Guard (TA to you Brits)....flying Hueys and Kiowa's. We had to do our Annual Flight Physicals at Fort Bragg with an Active Duty Army Flight Surgeon. This was when Jim Fixx and jogging was "In".

At one of these fun filled events....the "Jogger" Flight Surgeon (Real Army Type) looking down a very long nose suggested it would be a good thing if I took up jogging and suggested a couple of miles a day would do miracles for my general health and longevity.

He was more than a bit miffed when I told him I just could not possibly do that...no way....No Sir!

After he ranted on about the virtues of such a mobile lifestyle...he asked me why I could not do such.

He shut his festering Gob after I reminded him I would lose my current civilian employment as I was required to run Five Miles twice a day as I was in Police Training.

Jogging is one thing....but strap a 50 Pound Rucksack on your back and carry a Weapon....and it is an altogether different thing.

Besides....I thought we there to stand our ground and fight....not run.

[Toadstool]

Hence why the USMC et al use a range of tests to determine combat fitness

Not generalising, but have a RM mate who told me of his time he and his Coy went to the States to do some training with the USMC. When they got there, they felt intimidated at the first PT session as many of the USMC troops were muscle bound and large in stature.

Next day, my mate who is approx 5'8" and of medium size and build was on a 8-mile battle run. With 2 miles remaining, he found himself next to one of these muscle bound huge USMC chaps who was chinstrapped. The RM ended up carrying both weapons, his own webbing, the USMC chap's pack and pushing the USMC guyfrom behind to get him moving.

You are right that being a skinny good runner doesn't necessarily mean that you can cope with the extra weight that combat gear brings. On the other hand, being muscle bound while neglecting cardio doesn't necessarily mean that you can run long distances with the extra weight. A good balance between the two and a positive mental attitude goes a long way.

I'm off for a pie and a pint.

[NutLoose]

Besides....I thought we there to stand our ground and fight....not run. I remember the story of some US General or the like out on the ranges reviewing his fresh face recruits at about the time the Vietnam war was on the go, arriving at the first he said, "Soldier you have hoards of NVA enemy approaching your position and you have a stoppage what are your correct actions", the soldier replies, "belt off, clear stoppage, belt on, carry on".
This went on all the way down the line until he reached a Viet Vet and asking again the "Soldier you have hoards of NVA enemy approaching your position and you have a stoppage what are your correct actions" he got the answer "Belt off, Pack off, and f*ck Off"

:ok:

[SASless]

First Cav guy I bet ya too!

Reputation garnered from their time in Korea.

From their Shoulder Patch....

The Horse they never rode.....the Line they never held.....and the color for the reason "Why"!



http://www.historicaviation.com/Image.po?pn=0062370&size=large

[FOG]

In the USMC anything less than a 1st class PFT is grounds for an automatic adverse Fitness report (unless you're a female...). A 270 PFT score is considered the minimum in an infantry, engineer or artillery Bn. Officers are expected to maintain a 290 PFT in those units. Only exceptions are recuperating form injury or illness.

Before being sent USMC Officer Candidate School a male has to do the run in under 19 minutes, 18 pull-ups and max sit-ups.

Most USMC units concentrate fore on humping (yomping) vice distance running (say over 3-5 miles). The MCCRES standard is 25 miles under eight hours with all gear for non-infantry and seven hours as a weapons company for infantry, these without females. The females do not carry packs, only 782 (LBE) and individual weapons (rifle or carbine), no flak vest and have eleven hours to do eighteen miles.

I've rarely seen a pack as light as fifty pounds, plus flak, etc.

In my experience with the RM they concentrate more on the running and at lighter weights while the USMC emphasizes only the three mile run and humping.

S/F, FOG

[Toadstool]

FOG

I'm sure the RM would disagree about the lighter weights and running. The final test before becoming a RM involves full weight and weapon with a 30 miles yomp over undulating and different terrain in under 8 hours. Officers have to do it under 7 hours. The guys I have worked with consider 3-5 miles with full kit a warm up :) Off for a pie and a pint again as writing this has made me tired.

[FOG]

Toadstool,

Most of the standards are for line units, not training except where noted. In the USMC as far as overall ability to hump and run the GCE are generally in the best shape, then the flying squadrons (often the flying squadrons post much better run times but don’t hump as well), then way down are the CSS units and higher (flag level) HQs.

If you really want to torque off the pure grunts on either side of the Atlantic inquire as to who has the beat rifle and pistol scores.

The flying squadrons pass the MCCRES humps as far as time/distance/weight but sometimes get dinged for planning/participation. On the planning part the tendency is to use a previously used route and not staff it as in school and participation the hits come from not doing it as a whole unit but break it up port/starboard plus a make-up in order to continue supporting people. CO/XO get to do it at least twice if not three times. Admittedly it is easier in smaller units, especially for the XO who is always at the back end of the whip.

The shocking disappointment was my one tour in USMC CSS.

Not that I can do much of this any longer as medically retired.

S/F, FOG

[BEagle]

All this talk of jolly yomping and pullups (whatever they are) is all very well for those who are faced with an infantry environment, but I thank my lucky stars that I only had to go to war in HM's aeroplanes sitting down. And without an escape system, no chance of having to jump out either.

[SASless]

But Beags....Please!

Parachutes had not been invented back then when you were wearing your off blue togs.

[BEagle]

Parachutes had indeed been invented - but we didn't have any escape system, so they wouldn't have been of any use to us.

[Lancman]

When I was a lad a Flight Engineer had to be able to lift the back end of a Lancaster on his back and change the tail-wheel with his bare hands, whilst whistling the RAF march past.

[Haraka]

Never forget (thank God) that the sexes are different in the way they view the world.
Some examples:
1. Women are far more aware than men of undercurrents in social interaction.(That bitch is making a play for him!).
2. Women are normally far more perceptive than men in absorbing peripheral information . (That lovely clothes shop behind the garage on the left as we go to the station).
3. Women usually have far more patience than men on repetitive tasking ( E.g. After 35 recce passes over the same barracks, noting that one item of kit has changed).
4. Women basically have better colour perception than men , (No , its not actually blue -it's azure)
5. Women tend to be more tactful than men. . (A result of having to work and survive in female hierarchical groups when the men were out doing other things - like hunting).


I could tell you about some of the many things that men are generally far better at than women , but my wife won't let me :)

[SASless]

It is official....the USMC now has three Girl Grunts!

Well Done Marine! Bravo Zulu to all three.

First Female Marines Graduate Infantry Training | Marines Blog (http://marines.dodlive.mil/2013/11/21/first-female-marines-graduate-infantry-training/)

[TheWestCoast]

Uh....what?

[The Helpful Stacker]

What happened to that female Rupert who did the All-Arms Commando course? Did she join the CLR in the end?

To add, at a slight tangent, what is the correct term for a female Rupert or is 'Rupert' asexual?

[BEagle]

To add, at a slight tangent, what is the correct term for a female Rupert...?

Ma'am as far as you're concerned, surely?

:p

[Haraka]

is 'Rupert' asexual ?




Perhaps best not to ask him......

[The Helpful Stacker]

Ma'am as far as you're concerned, surely?

Only occassionally these days, when dealing with the BS military. Its unusual to talk to one of my commissioned colleagues using anything other than their first name.

[sitigeltfel]

No comment on this. Too angry for words.

£100k compo for marching injuries! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html)

[BEagle]

I agree - quite ridiculous that recruits should have been treated in such a way as to have caused such serious injuries.

[500N]

Beggars belief.

Maybe they should be wheeled around in wheel chairs in future !

[mad_jock]

Or follow the prescribed method of females marching.

Not be made to do something because it offends some drill instructors sense of standards.

Even in my day we were having kids breaking bones because there bone density just wasn't up to what they were being subjected to.

Some of the lads had never worn shoes or boots in there life. Running in boots killed half of them in under 5 days. The first day they were actually faster than us rugby types. Second they were complaining of shin splints 3rd to 5th they were lagging behind and eventually had to stop some with stress fractures.

I believe these days they have gradual introduction to PT in boots.

But even then at 17-18 if they haven't done contact sports and have sat on the couch most of there growing years the bones won't be up to it.

[Trim Stab]

Some of the lads had never worn shoes or boots in there life.

I know of a Fijian who passed Selection in bare feet. He still had to carry his boots with him though.

[mad_jock]

Our two were on standing orders they weren't allowed to murder the local wildlife and also any domestic animals that they came across when hungry or cold.

Ever since they gave us a negative resupply exercise. 20 mins after getting the info we had 10 rabbits cooking on the 4 tonner exhausts. And post exercise it was a common opinion that we had never eaten so well and can we get venison again please. They had apparently taken two down using home made bolas. The rabbits were with a home made sling shot. Which actually made quite decent covering fire against the DS on the morning attack by the swearing that was going on. Don't worry no directing staff were injured they just got a bit of a shock when a stone got rattled off there battle bowler.

And the domestic animals got added after one of them was sporting a particularly nice cat fur hat after a couple of days on Otterburn ranges in Feb.

[West Coast]

For F sake tell me that's a joke. Money for marching, why the hell didn't I think of that.

[Al-bert]

And the domestic animals got added after one of them was sporting a particularly nice cat fur hat after a couple of days on Otterburn ranges in Feb.

are we referring to WRAF chaps here?!