Few women will qualify for land combat

This will last until there is a real war. Nations only have women in combat when they are forced into that situation. The USSR did it in WW2 because of the high casualties in men, and the fact they were losing to Germany. Israel did it because they did not have enough men and the nation is so small. Women in combat is fanciful but it won't stand the test of reality.

 

Yes, that is why the USSR and Israel were defeated, they had women in their military. Not.

No, wars are no longer fought with swords and shields.

 

Wrong on both counts.

The USSR used women in combat forces during WW2 because they lost millions of men, and at the start the Germans were defeating the Russian army. The Russians were desperate and were forced to use everybody. After the war, they removed women from combat arms.

Israel at various times was forced to use women in combat arms because the population was so small and the territory so small that they could not meet the manpower requirements with just men. Those critical times are likely to come again for Israel so they keep the option open.

Neither put women in combat arms because women make great soldiers, or are superior to men. They did it out of necessity.

And then there is the arm-chair warrior claim that the military is no longer physical (swords and shields). That's just plain ignorance. Infantry is physically demanding, special forces are more demanding. Artillery and armor is demanding physically. Its not tv or "Call of Duty".

 

Carter gettin' ready to draft womens...

DOD: Now That Women Can Serve in All Combat Roles They 'May' Need to Register for Selective Service
December 4, 2015 | Following his announcement that he is opening all positions in the U.S. military--including all combat positions--to women who can meet the standards, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was asked on Thursday if that means women will have to register with the Selective Service, just as men must do. "It may," he said.

 

Since the training standards are the same, who cares if few women make it or a bunch, or none at all. What matters is that they are not barred or hindered unfairly, not that women make it in large numbers. Who knows how many women would even try out.

 

Wouldn't the role matter tank crews are heavy combat roles and are technical combat roles demanding a decent amount of physical and technical aptitude, women tend to graduate High School more than men and tend to seek more college level credentials if we went for a total war setting they might fill hard to plug into combat positions when drafted and they would be up for the draft - the main reason their limited roles are now tossed out the window. They might not all be in combat but they can fill roles to free men to be infantry soldiers and such. And some women will be good enough as a volunteer force to be Green Berets I'm sure.

I tend to disagree with Mr. Carter the Selective Service now must for equality grounds be open to both genders, there is no long a compelling reason for them to not serve if its activated and in a total war scenario we need women in the armed forced to do their duty.

 

Getting into the SEALs would be almost impossible, but female soldiers could be assigned to normal infantry units. I don't think there is much physical difference between Asian/Jewish men and Russian/Scandinavian women of similar heights and gender stereotypes have prevented qualified women’s integration into combat units. A short Asian man may have comparable physical strength to an average Russian woman (5' 5").

 

Name a war lost because of women combatants?

Women were not used in combat because of patriarch attitudes, not because women can't fight and fight well.

The issue is about fighting on land, not being human pack mules. I speak from knowledge, ie daughter in the military. She met the standards of men on day one, and weighing down her pack and having only her also wearing full body armor with ballistic plates for the extra weigh and she still met all male standards. They pushed her harder and harder to see how much she could take. She never said a word of complaint, though could have, but also organized her barracks basically becoming the unofficial commander of it, for which it was only those in her barracks for which no one was recycled or blown out. She had organized the barrack for inspections like an assembly line.

It was not her physical abilities that most left an impression, but how she never left her own squad behind, though could have. In individual timed runs, she'd excel. But in squad runs, she'd be moving from front to back, encouraging the ones at the rear to pick it up. When asked why she did that, she said they were a squad so they will all pass or they will all fail, because in combat they will all live or they will all die "because we are a squad." She left basic with many awards and acknowledgements.

When a DI chided her saying maybe she thinks she didn't need to go thru basic, she replied she did, because she didn't know how to march correctly. "I already knew how to run, shoot and get dresssed, but need you to teach me how to march." Good comeback. She said it was the only time she saw the DI crack a smile. (She hates marching. Full gear long runs, sure, "but marching sucks." LOL)

She was invited into the Sere program, which most Seres could likely could kick the ass of most Navy Seals - or at least out survive them - and basically unheard of for a female. Explaining she would have to eat snakes and bugs and swim with sharks, she replied she's eaten snake and bugs and until joining up swam alone in the waters here 3 times a week, which are the most shark infested waters in the USA. However, she declined, not wishing to go thru the torture conditioning and not wanting a military career in general. She goes rock climbing and other activities with male marines and could kick the ass of most military men. Marksmen medal of course. Excellent at throwing knives. Very attractive too.

She's also academically brilliant and now instead serves in areas that use her brain in technical areas. Not knowing you, I'm fairly comfident she could beat the crap out of you, outrun you, likely outshoot you and definitely outsmart you. She also is likely a smaller target and, being a woman, could infiltrate in ways you couldn't, making her more versitile.

A good friend of she's for years and since childhood was a Marine squad leader in Afghanistan. Combat Marine in combat in the Helman Province. He was totally - vehemently - against women in combat prior, but entirely supportive after his experience. It wasn't the toughest guys that matters. He wasn't the toughest guy. But he was the best hunter, the best organization, the best killer, and the right combination of courage but not reckless. He grew up on a farm and was probably out hunting alone with a rifle by age 8. He joined specifically to go into combat for the experience of hunting armed humans as a hunting challenge - a curious perspective. What greater and legal hunting challenge than hunting men - who are also hunting you? But my daughter also impressed him, saying he would have traded almost everyone in his squad for her, though prior to combat he openly would tell her women have no business being in the military except as nurses and secretaries.

His squad suffered no casualities, was always on foot, and inflicted many enemy casualties. He saw his squad as a group of hunters. He caught some flake for being unconventional in his hunting tactics and a few other practices, but they wanted him to re-enlist.

Being "tough" in terms of strength isn't what matters and can instill some psychological disadvantages as physical strength is usually irrelevant. Rather it is courage, loyalty, organizational skills, intelligence and the ability to shoot accurately including when underfire that matters. His squad often went on extended patrols and did see combat time and again. He commented that they were required to carry alot of "s..." they don't need and when out of sight would dump it, picking it back up on the way back. He opted not to re-enlist claiming the military has become far too bureaucratic focused rather than combat focused, leading to "insane" rules, requirements and restrictions.

His experience with Afghans also influenced his opinion. They were physically strong enough, but cowards, stupid, disloyal, and the idea of actually aiming before firing was a concept they couldn't grasp. In short, he learned it wasn't the tough/strong guys that were the best and physical strength had very little to do with it. He also commented that there were situations in dealing with the locals where having a woman in the squad would have been beneficial. Simply, after his combat experience he 100% shifted towards favoring women in combat roles for many reasons. If reasonably physically fit, loyal, smart, follow orders and can shoot well including when under fire, why not?

Strong back and weak mind does not make for a good soldier. For roles that require strong backs, put men with strong backs in those roles. For all the incredible acts of valor and courage in the history of the military, and the awards for the same, "physically strongest" was never a factor.

 

So you might have the one in a thousand woman who can meet the standards, that is not an argument to let all women have an equal shot at all military occupations. It still comes down to basic numbers, women as a class miss meeting the requirements by a wide margin. Unless you have an unlimited budget and unlimited resources, its foolish to divert opportunities to women.

The Ranger School experience proves it - 138 women started the process including months of prep which men don't get, 20 passed the assessment phase, ZERO passed Phase 1 of the Ranger School, 8 were given a second chance and again ZERO passed, 3 were given a third chance and after a General told everyone "there will be a female Ranger" 2 got to the end of the program, the third was recycled for a fourth try and got to the end of the program.

Do you want to dedicate 138 school slots to women and get 3 women who with extra preparation and special treatment get to the end of the course? Or do you want to give those 138 slots to men and get 70 fully qualified Rangers?

***

The fact you have a daughter in the military does not make you an expert at the military experience, it just makes you a bystander.

 

Okay say we detect ,say two years out, an incoming alien force and our nation with others go to full mobilization for war just in case they are hostile will it matter in a draft what private parts the adult has in the Selective Service? We will find everyone able to fill the ranks and plug them in where they qualify and if women can be tank crewman, pilots, artillerists, chemical and bio warfare soldiers, medics, serve in naval forces and train for electronic warfare units who care what gender they are? Seriously. Its called freeing up a man who can lug rifles around for a role a woman can do but broader than the women's services did before that.

 

Why not allow men to repeat too? It happens in other stages/types of military training. Some prior-service soldiers are having to completely redo basic before they can return to active duty.

 

You are fighting the wrong argument - the argument is about women in combat units, not in the military. Some military occupations should be open for women, some should not.

 

Men can repeat (its called recycling) Ranger School. But they don't get 3 recycles in Phase 1 like the women.

 

I know what it is referred to as, but the fact that they don't currently get to do something doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it too if women are getting to do it. If it were not allowed at all, then an argument could be made that it is a resource allocation issue, but if yo have to reallocate time, personnel, etc, for one group, then there is no reason to not do it for other groups.

 

Combat units is broad, operating a tank IS in a combat unit as one example so what they should do is test everyone and those suited for combat will be trained in combat duty who cares what private parts they have?

 

I do know about fighting and the strongest fighter is never - as in NEVER - the best. If you were in the military you have no more knowledge of the military than anyone else other than singularly whatever specific task you performed.

Your male view that you as a man not only are superior to women, but in comparison women are worthless is not only a common view of men, but particularly common in the military.

She has commented many times that generally male COs make things tougher for her and deliberately try to blow her out, usually by trying to overwhelm her. One CO told her he's never had a female in his section and never will. She could have filed a complaint and he probably wanted her too, as this would have had her reasigned, his pointlessly reprimanded and her brand her record as trouble. Instead, she just took the extra load, but drew the line at violating printed rules. With that CO it did come down to a showdown when she blackballed a takeoff refusing to comply with that CO's order to sign off on the mission.

The aircrew then also refused. While the CO decided not to push it, the aircrew (all male) did - specifically that the CO had ordered her to sign off and then ordered them to takeoff without her signing off. He had piled tasks on her, basically pulling others off and in her opinion there was something wrong, only hadn't checked all systems yet. The aircrew pushed it, greatly disliking a CO trying to order her - and then them - to break VERY strict protocol. Bringing in another team it was determined that had the aircraft turned on its systems over the mission area it would have unknowningly been broadcasting highly confidential passwords and codes. I gather that's a big deal and it was the CO's ass, and another advancement for her.

The path she seems taken on is being repeated. Initially she is with some CO with your view about women - and determined to prove it. Those are ego-driven COs, not mission-driven COs. Those COs believe their own crap and end up proving the opposite, leading to a more influential and/or higher ranking mission oriented CO specifically wanting her, and in this she climbs the ladder again. In a sense, half of what is making her rise are military men with your attitude about females. Their attempts to overwhelm and break her instead prove her superiority in real, usable ways. In this, she increasingly is moving into the problem solver and overseer role - if something isn't right, get her so she can figure it out. She understands psychology and certainly men with your viewpoint. But she doesn't bog down in that. Rather, she stays mission focused, refuses to step outside the book - ever - and will not compromise in that regards.

People who do a stint in the military conclude they are experts in the military, which is nonsense. Would you say Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are experts in government for which you have not basis to claim either of them are wrong? Your knowledge of the military is only your own personal experience/tasks. Otherwise your viewpoint is nothing more than hearsay the same as my opinions are.

Again, you view that you as a man are so superior in combat roles that woman are worthless in combat roles is common, in my opinion an ego issue, and inaccurate. There are 10,000 ways anyone can be blown out/failed in basic, meaning it is easy enough to blow out/fail women.

That is setting aside that if requirements are designed specifically for men then men will tend to do better at them. On the other hand, if a center-of-gravity lifting ability were set upon a standard for women, exactly 100% of men would fail because women naturally have a lower center of gravity. But the real flaw in your reasoning is what I stated, your view that the essential element of combat ability is the ability to be a pack mule grunt. Name ANY winner of any major honor medal by virtual of how fast they run or how much they can carry. Prove your point, rather than just asserting it as a truism. In my opinion - and I do know plenty about fighting - it is not a truism whatsoever and it just antiquated paternalism.

 

Yes, I'm bragging of her and she is awesome, but that's not my point.

The military in the modern era is not foremost dependent upon troops at the bottom who can run carrying a lot of weight. The military has 5 times as many applying for those roles as it is hiring. They need people with greater skills who can get past that level. In my daughter's instance, she was an academic superstar and in proven, technically usable areas. It was surprising she gave up continuing full scholarship at a top private university to sign up. She figured it would look good on her resume and she could actual take care of all undergrad degrees faster while in the military too.

Technically she has absolute disqualifiers - medical. But she was not rejected, only delayed. When she said if they don't accept her soon she's going over to the Army to sign up, they literally brought in a doctor just to do the examination of her. The doctor interviewed her for about an hour asking her goals, motives for signing up and about her personal life. The doctor then said she was done (female doctor). My daughter asked what about the physical examination? The doctor replied, "you passed."

Her great physical fitness particularly being female came as a huge surprise, leading to the almost unheard of offer to try out for being a Sere - which literally is identified as a male-only position even on the military website. But that's not why they wanted her. She's a proven genius and in real, usable and practical ways. It was basically assumed that hopefully she'd somehow make it thru basic with some behind-the-scenes strings being pulled, not that she'd blitz it.

Guys who did a stint in the military in ground combat tend to think the whole military exists for them. It doesn't. I'm not challenging that men tend to be stronger than women and significantly so. Rather, I'm challenging your narrow view of what qualifies as being sufficient - and absolutely needed - for anyone in any combat role. It is far more diverse than you think in my opinion. They also tried to convince her to bounce of officer training, but she declined. She does not want to be career military and officer's training would provide little to no usable educational value, plus would interfere with her academic education, nor would earn as many college credits, which she continues pursuing.

 

The Soviet Union] used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops.

None of those traits are part of qualifying measures nor tested in basic/boot camp, are they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

- - - Updated - - -

From WWI:

At the end of May, the Minister of War of the Russian Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, authorized the formation of the 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death in Petrograd.[5] This first all-female combat unit initially attracted over 2,000 enlistees between the ages of eighteen and forty, but Bochkareva's strict discipline and refusal to allow the formation of soldiers' committees soon drove out all but about 300 volunteers.[6][7]
Called into action against the Germans during the Kerensky Offensive, they were assigned to the 525th Kiuruk-Darinski Regiment and occupied a trench near Smorgon. Ordered to go over the top, the soldiers of the war weary men's battalions hesitated. The women, however, decided to go with or without them. Eventually they pushed past three trenches into German territory.

The 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death, commanded by Bochkareva, was still at the front after the revolution, but disbanded shortly after as a result of increasing hostility from male troops who resented female volunteers for preventing them from retreating many times over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Time and again the complaint against combat women in the history of the Russian military is not that they can't fight or won't fight, but that they won't retreat or give up when the men want to. They made the men look bad.

 

Recycling is done if someone is injured, or if someone fails one test but does very well in the rest and shows promise. Recycling is not automatic, and most that don't pass a phase are not recycled.

And part of the purpose of Ranger School is to make you face new and challenging obstacles while you are stressed with little food and little sleep and with instructors watching and grading. Its to teach you how to operate when faced with the unexpected. Recycling defeats some of the purpose of the program, particularly if there is a delay and the candidate gets to sleep and eat during the delay.

 

Interesting that you mention tanks. Israel allows women in their military and even have one majority female infantry brigade, but women are barred from serving in tanks because the women did not have the upper body strength, and because the very close quarters led to "problems" as in forming a sexual relationship and all that it entails including breakups and pregnancy.

People are not robots, they have emotions. Even if women can do a particular occupation, it does not mean there will not be severe problems.

 

As a category, men are superior to women in combat roles, that's just a fact. The recent Ranger School experience proves it conclusively. So does the recent USMC trials of women and men in combat related tasks. Your women have a lower center of gravity so will pass a "cg based test" and all men will fail is ridiculous. Those tests are performed already in lifting equipment, artillery shells, sand bags. Men lift more for longer.

Men who were awarded (you don't "win" the Medal of Honor) the Medal of Honor for carrying while under fire wounded men to safety: Timothy Donoghue, Michael Donaldson, Charles Liteky. Doubtless there are many more.

How about Francis Pierce: From his citation http://homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1940_wwii/pierce.html "...........Then lifting the wounded man to his back, he advanced unarmed through deadly rifle fire across 200 feet of open terrain. Despite exhaustion and in the face of warnings against such a suicidal mission, he again traversed the same fire-swept path to rescue the remaining marine. ........"

Look up Alejandro Ruiz, tell me his feat did not require pure physical strength and stamina.

You arm chair warriors don't have a clue.

 

Well, tell me your great "warrior" experiences since apparently you claim to have that experience. Ever actually been in life-death hand to hand combat? How many times? How many have come at you with a knife? How often? Ever been in close quarter being shot at and shooting at them? How often? How many did you kill as a warrior in the military? Just what are your actual "warrior" experiences?

Among the reasons my daughter was lead to developing herself physically and in very real world fighting skills is due to the life experiences of her father.

No, in fact, all women have a lower center of gravity and a simple test proves it. Put your back to the wall with an ordinary chair in front of you. Keeping your legs fully against the wall as you do, bend over and pick up the chair keeping your legs against the wall. You can't do it. Women can.

You have not presented anything to show that men are superior in combat. Oh, wait, you can show me the outcome of a squad of women versus a squad of men in Ranger training where all the women were killed or captured, right?

I've already acknowledged that if you need a human mule, pick male humans.

Testing men in areas where men have advantages and testing no areas where women have advantages does not prove men are superior. It just proves the military remains a patriachial organization keeping itself that way.

Go to a packinghouse and the luggers who carry the quarters of beef off the truck will explain how they are the most important of all because others can't do their job, when the company could hire luggers all day long at minimum wage. A fast skilled butcher on the line is 10 times more valuable. Granted, the company will stroke the ego of the luggers because that's all the luggers got. The Marines and Rangers will always tell their bottom rankers they are the "point of the spear" and other ways to explain how important they are - while the military spends VASTLY more $$ and time on those who actually are more important because of other less common skills and abilities. Yes, many Marines and Rangers - and others in low ranking combat roles take the ego-stroking for them as then truisms of life, fighting and war. They aren't.

 

And not all of the women were recycled, but if some were, then there is no reason some men couldn't be as well.

I guess you and I have a fundamental different perspective. The purpose of the program is to create soldiers skilled at close and sustained combat. If you are going to have people still repeating parts of the crawl phase while others are walking or the walking phase while others are running, I see no reason that allowing others to repeat as well is an issue since you are already allocating resources to that.

 

I don't put my personal information on the internet, and I do not need to. My arguments stand on their own merit without needing my personal credentials to back them up. The Ranger School and Marine Corps experience with women are on the web for all to read.

So your daughter is wonderful in your eyes, that's expected. But its odd how she is such a perfect soldier, the best in every command she is in, but every command she is in is out to get her. There's always 2 sides the story, and I don't believe you are presenting the full story.

As to your chair test and all the rest - LOL get real. You have zero understanding or knowledge. You are wasting time.

 

Part of training soldiers skilled in combat is the stress, people need to learn how they and others react under stress. Its not just knowing the academics of setting up an ambush or building a rope bridge or communications, its being able to do it under stress and when things go wrong.

Its not just a matter of recycling either. Look at the program setup for the women - months of preparation and training designed specifically to duplicate the Ranger School and not available to men, after then they take the assessment course (RTAC) which is a pre-Ranger training course, and then the go to the actual Ranger school. All the women failed actual Ranger School Phase 1. 8 women were recycled - which is fine - and all 8 failed again. About 75% of men who complete RTAC pass the Ranger course, 0% of women passed the course. 3 of those 8 were recycled again which is unusual, and having a General come down and tell everyone "there will be a female Ranger", 2 women ended up going through the course.

For the women, the roughly 2 month Ranger course was turned into a 6 month program, and still all the women failed. Thats a huge expansion of resources for no return.