Women In Combat-Lowered Standards A Threat?
Thread Starter
Women In Combat-Lowered Standards A Threat?
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
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.
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
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
For you Nobs that habitually whine about the lack of Aviation content.....
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'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,058
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Things might take longer to do and although not in the category of "bad happens", it can compound other things on a mission.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
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?
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.
Last edited by Ken Scott; 19th Nov 2013 at 12:08. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 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.
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
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
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
We are talking front line infantry here....not box stackers at a warehouse.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 ?
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 ?
Thread Starter
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.
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.
For you Nobs that habitually whine about the lack of Aviation content.....
Night Witches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia