Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: USA gives bigger guns to women

  1. #1
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default USA gives bigger guns to women

    That's right, women can now also drive tanks in the US military and have been granted access to all combat roles if they fulfill the requirements like everyone else.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/po...ons/index.html

    "This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat," Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

    His move comes despite the objections of Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had advocated keeping some roles limited to men.
    Apparently the move came in spite of evil reactionists with outdated ideas who want to keep women below a glass ceiling and pay them 70 cents on the dollar, but I think it's only fair after the gays were officially allowed all of these positions first. The next move shall be openly allowing radical islamists, who are still not getting the recognition they deserve in our society.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    If you try to make sense of the last statement, it's your own fault, I'm just heating the flames of discusssion.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  2. #2
    Senior Member Senior Member Graphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nevada, U.S.
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    I'm sure we'll hear a bunch of doomsaying from social regressives about how this will destroy unit cohesion, just like with letting gays serve openly, or integrating negroes. In the end nothing will happen just like the latter two cases and the regressives will go on saying America and all of its institutions are on the brink of collapse because of liberals as they have been for the last 200 years straight.

  3. #3

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Hopefully the regressives will let the military sort out its problems with doctrine and procurement at some point...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #4
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,474

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    As long as they can meet the same physical standards as males then most people in the military Ive talked to dont care. If they cant, then they have no business being in combat positions. It goes beyond equality or unit cohesion or whatever, its about saving lives. If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great, power to her and she will make a great combat soldier. But if she cant, what is she going to do when she has to do it in combat and lives depend on her?
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

    Member thankful for this post:



  5. #5

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    That actually ties in with my off-hand comment in a subtle way.

    Doctrine and procurement: oriented today toward special ops, "shock and awe", long-range confrontation with missiles, drones, and aircraft, and conventional ground forces as an afterthought.

    Speaking abstractly, there should be some differences in standards for various roles depending on the war scenario and the dynamic value of particular roles. Just as an example, what differences in standards could or should there be for a protracted conflict with conventional frontlines, in which presumably artillery, armor, and heavy infantry are overall a more important factor than cavalry and light recon insertions 0 relative to the past generation? Would they be reduced for the sake of mass mobilization or even conscription? Would they be reduced because close contact between opposing infantry squads is expected to be even rarer - or the opposite? What impact might sweeping campaign-specific changes in equipment loadout have on the standards at home?

    This is a very broad question; make clear what assumptions you impute to it, or yourself bring to bear.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  6. #6
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,474

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    There actually has been some discussion on relaxing some standards for some jobs, especially when it comes to cyber warfare. The military wont be able to attract the best people when the best people are not going to want to put up with all the annoyances of military life, not to mention the intense physical activity and low pay. Why go to the army, have to wake up at the crack of dawn every weekday to do physical exercise and get barely over $20k for it when you can get three times that in the private sector? So what ends up happening is that the military has to hire outside contractors who are very expensive to do the work.

    Also all of this makes me wonder if women will now have to register for the draft.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  7. #7
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    As long as they can meet the same physical standards as males then most people in the military Ive talked to dont care. If they cant, then they have no business being in combat positions. It goes beyond equality or unit cohesion or whatever, its about saving lives. If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great, power to her and she will make a great combat soldier. But if she cant, what is she going to do when she has to do it in combat and lives depend on her?
    I am not sure what Monty is aiming at but the part I quoted starts by saying they have to fulfill all the standards and qualify, so I'm not sure why this would be a concern?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  8. #8
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,474

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    There is a big concern that standards will be lowered to ensure that women passed. For example the USMC has tried to put a number of women through their male-only courses and they all failed for various reasons, so they have a valid concern that they will be forced to lower standards in order to comply with the new ruling.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  9. #9

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    That's pretty tangential to my question.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #10
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    There is a big concern that standards will be lowered to ensure that women passed. For example the USMC has tried to put a number of women through their male-only courses and they all failed for various reasons, so they have a valid concern that they will be forced to lower standards in order to comply with the new ruling.
    Which tests?

    http://ciceromagazine.com/features/i...-combat-roles/

    First, they began by doing research on a set of proxy tests that would be used to screen for combat fitness. The proxy tests, 6 largely upper-body, strength-based tests, were used to evaluate the performance of 409 male and 379 female Marines. Although the link between these 6 events and the “knowledge, skills, and abilities needed” for various combat jobs is not clear the research yielded some interesting results. In the “good performers” category 66% were male Marines while 34% were female Marines. In the highest performing category 92% were male while 8% were female. Clearly, there are a percentage of women that can compete in both categories. Despite these results the Marines seem to have dropped the use of proxy tests to screen for combat jobs.

    [...]

    Later in 2013, the Marines decided to expand the infantry training research to enlisted women. Similarly, they invited enlisted women to volunteer for the enlisted infantry course and were more successful. Out of more than 240 volunteers more than 98 have graduated. When enlisted women began graduating from the infantry course the Marines decided that perhaps initial entry training was not a good test of whether women could perform in infantry units. Instead, they said that collective tasks that Marines perform out in the fleet are harder and would provide the true litmus test of women’s combat potential.
    To me this sounds like they had some women succeed and then always went "yeah, but..." because they didn't like the result.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...fficer-course/

    In this case they all failed, but 29 is also not necessarily a representative sample. And if you look at the first link, you may see why the IOC test with women is a huge failure (and even less representative):

    Instead they pursued other research efforts. The first and most controversial has been their research at the infantry officer course (IOC). They invited women officers, on a voluntary and trial basis, to attempt to complete IOC. While they sought to evaluate 92 volunteers over three years they have not been able to recruit anywhere near that number and none of those who has volunteered has graduated. Critics cite a lack of any possible incentive for women officers to volunteer coupled with a disclosure form that volunteers must sign that states that, “If a volunteer is unable to successfully complete the program of instruction, it is unlikely they will be recycled due to impact on delaying attendance at their PMOS school, possible negative impact on fitness reporting cycles, potential harm to the volunteer’s career path, and complication with equitable career designations.” In short, a woman failing on her first attempt would likely not be offered a recycle opportunity, generally expected of men, due to negative career impacts—a rather large disincentive.
    Also: http://www.theonion.com/article/us-m...tral-kil-31015
    Last edited by Husar; 12-04-2015 at 04:41.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    "If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great" Isn't it the job description of a field medic? Women are field medic for year... And women is other armies did quite a good job, (even it was denied later) i.e. Roza Shanina
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Roza Shanina.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	320.1 KB 
ID:	17055

    I could do the same for tank crew, pilots, air crew etc.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  12. #12
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,648

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    It's really a non-issue anyway if you just have all male and all female units. Given the terrible treatment of women in the military, it is probably best to separate the sexes anyway as a transitioning period until the old conservatives have retired.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  13. #13

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Bad idea. Retaining some segregated units would be a good study, but pulling back on the whole institution? And given the complaints most bandied about, segregation would solve nothing unless you either maximize segregation (i.e. women can only be pilots, artillery crew, MPs, orderlies...) or segregate the battlefield on an operational and strategic level such that, for example, one all-female army covers a given area, while an all-male army covers another, largely independent of each other.

    It really makes no sense to propose it.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  14. #14
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,648

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    You are missing the human aspect. Women in the military already suffer from sexual harassment and rape, which the military tries to cover up. Fact is, many male soldiers are not heroic men for simply signing up. Until the head brass pushes for a full on cultural change, an increasingly coed status will ultimately do more harm than good. Hence, wait it out until the old guard dies.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 12-04-2015 at 10:04.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  15. #15

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    But they go hand-in-hand, you see. The military is an institution that draws recruits from the wider American society, so there is far less compartmentalization than you seem to assume.

    Also, how do you segregate without creating such absurdities as I pointed out?
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Hum, just more social engineering to degrade the military.

    I see nothing wrong with women serving in the military. Even in combat if they choose it and can qualify.

    This doesn’t do that. If they want to do it, it requires some serious reengineering of existing weapons systems and a total revamp of standards and doctrine. This is the cart before the horse.

    Just an example, with tanks as that is what the thread alludes to.

    Every member of a crew had to know the job of every other member and be able to perform it. Nothing on a tank is light. It takes a deal of physical strength to perform both crew duties and to maintain the vehicle. The lowest ranking member of the crew is the loader. Tank 120mm main gun rounds weigh from 20.1kg up to about 25kg. These have to be safely loaded on board and the loader has to be able to load the gun on the move in about 4 sec. and continue to do so as long as necessary. The breech operating handle of the gun has around 30kg resistance. The commander’s charging handle for the M-2hb has about the same. These are light work compared to track maintenance.

    As this was strictly a political decision, crew standards will be sacrificed to achieve a political goal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYrH7_MmAo

    Pay attention to what happens at about 2:50 into the video.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

    Member thankful for this post:



  17. #17

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    But just taking an MBT crew as a fixed (for our purposes) example, then why would we expect a de facto lowering of standards with females in tank crews?

    Aren't tank crew are trained and evaluated based on performance in maintenance and various combat-relevant tasks? What would the difference be with female applicants included in the mix, unless you make the specific prediction that female tankers will be more likely to 'burn out' in a sustained combat environment (or other such things that might be more difficult to catch in training)?
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    But just taking an MBT crew as a fixed (for our purposes) example, then why would we expect a de facto lowering of standards with females in tank crews?

    Aren't tank crew are trained and evaluated based on performance in maintenance and various combat-relevant tasks? What would the difference be with female applicants included in the mix, unless you make the specific prediction that female tankers will be more likely to 'burn out' in a sustained combat environment (or other such things that might be more difficult to catch in training)?
    I spoke of it as an engineering problem. You can not expect the average young woman to be up to the physical strength and endurance necessary to perform to current standards. Either tanks get reengineered or standards fall. In a tank crew you cannot exclude crew duties based on physical strength. Everyone has to be able to do every job but the loader’s job is the basic entry point.

    In most jobs, via federal regulation workers aren’t permitted to lift over 40lbs. As a tank crewman, it is a basic requirement.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...05&oe=56F5C277


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  19. #19

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    But they're not going to be vetting "the average young woman", right? Given current standards, very few female applicants would be able to qualify as tankers - and so the standards don't change, unless you posit a hidden or long-term deficiency in even the qualifying female tankers. If your complaint is that they will inevitably lower standards so as to include more women, then that would be more understandable, though I don't see that happening outside the context of a mass-draft war.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    But they're not going to be vetting "the average young woman", right? Given current standards, very few female applicants would be able to qualify as tankers - and so the standards don't change, unless you posit a hidden or long-term deficiency in even the qualifying female tankers. If your complaint is that they will inevitably lower standards so as to include more women, then that would be more understandable, though I don't see that happening outside the context of a mass-draft war.
    To assume they will not lower standards is to ignore all which has gone before.

    Standards were altered or ignored with regard to the recent female ranger graduates. It occurred in most every field they have been brought into. To assume that standards won’t be altered for political reasons is to ignore the history of women in the military.

    I am not saying that ALL standards need to be maintained or that there are not other solutions. All I am saying is that the groundwork to implement women in combat has not received more than political declarations that they should.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Lowering Standards? Military did it yet, because the boys are too fat and lack strength and will, so I was told, due to a change of habitat and food habits.
    As other mentioned, selection for weapons and units is based on capacities... I was quite short, so APC were for me, when taller ones were for mortars or foot soldiers. Your tank-man will be crap as divers (muscles don't float), and as recon, hmmm...
    As tanks matter, a pilot is short, and the fact is the crew has to work together for the maintenance. Perhaps a muscular one will help to pull the caterpillar out, but the small and slim one will do to go under the tank to help in breaking it (for repair). And all soldiers are far to be as strong and big than what images seems to induce...
    The fact is the image of militaries of themselves will suffer more than the Armed Forces themselves.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  22. #22
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    Lowering Standards? Military did it yet, because the boys are too fat and lack strength and will, so I was told, due to a change of habitat and food habits.
    As other mentioned, selection for weapons and units is based on capacities... I was quite short, so APC were for me, when taller ones were for mortars or foot soldiers. Your tank-man will be crap as divers (muscles don't float), and as recon, hmmm...
    As tanks matter, a pilot is short, and the fact is the crew has to work together for the maintenance. Perhaps a muscular one will help to pull the caterpillar out, but the small and slim one will do to go under the tank to help in breaking it (for repair). And all soldiers are far to be as strong and big than what images seems to induce...
    The fact is the image of militaries of themselves will suffer more than the Armed Forces themselves.
    All those weight and strength issues were addressed in the 1970s. Todays US Army and Marine Corps could be termed as fitness obsessed.

    As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?

    People tasked with a job have to be able to do the job, without reservation. No caveats.

    That is why I said it is an Engineering Problem. You want women to do a job, you engineer it so they can. Not socially but mechanically.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    "As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?" Men are not all with the same strength... It doesn't mean the weakest can't be in a tank crew. So, when choices are made at the recruitment center, if the recruiter knows his/her job, women able to "man" a tank will be directed to the Tank school, whatever the name, and others will be directed to others arms... It is how it works... Well, in France at least, following your tests results, and then the physical one, then the training itself which made my platoon going from 36 to 17... And all the "failures" were men, and some much stronger or fitter than I was.
    The French Army thinks it is matter of will/motivation... And I tend to agree...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    Have a look at
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
    for the Air Forces

    True enough, after the War, Stalin, being a XIX century man, denied and in fact diminished the women's role to the more "conventional" fields of nursing, compassion and other "soft" duties.
    The reality is women are as deadly and aggressive than men.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  24. #24
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?" Men are not all with the same strength... It doesn't mean the weakest can't be in a tank crew. So, when choices are made at the recruitment center, if the recruiter knows his/her job, women able to "man" a tank will be directed to the Tank school, whatever the name, and others will be directed to others arms... It is how it works... Well, in France at least, following your tests results, and then the physical one, then the training itself which made my platoon going from 36 to 17... And all the "failures" were men, and some much stronger or fitter than I was.
    The French Army thinks it is matter of will/motivation... And I tend to agree...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    Have a look at
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
    for the Air Forces

    True enough, after the War, Stalin, being a XIX century man, denied and in fact diminished the women's role to the more "conventional" fields of nursing, compassion and other "soft" duties.
    The reality is women are as deadly and aggressive than men.
    As far as women’s competency in combat, you are preaching to the choir.

    It is what I said in my first post on the topic. I think you must have missed that.

    My objection to the current move by Secretary Carter is that it is intended to be disruptive. It is only designed to further lower moral and not to give women a chance to succeed in their chosen roles.

    In the US military, candidates can choose anything they wish based on their aptitude scores. Recruiters have little to do with it.

    There are however, more involved debates taking place in the military by a seriously hampered and politicised officer corps. Some, if you knew, you would say are insane. And you would be right.
    The decision to include women in all fields at this time, without reservation leads me to believe it is an act of political sabotage.

    It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    "It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?" Err, no. Sorry.
    To open in all fields might be political, so was to free the slaves, shop the king's head off and allowed women to vote and drive. These choices were not bad choices, so political choices are not an issue, depending what you want to achieve.
    You speak of moral disruption, when, in fact, all evidences I gathered tend to show you are wrong on this aspect.
    Yes, some adjustment in behaviours would have to be made, but, coming from a rural backgrounds, I never heard of a woman failing in farming duty under "female" problem. My grand-mother killed her first chicken at 4, and sold her first cow at 7... As an adult, she raised her children and participated to the fight against Nazism with the same weapon and determination than my grand-father. Due to history, my mother was one the first woman to get a driving licence (my father being in Algeria, he insisted on this point) so she was the one driving the tractor during harvesting...
    To put women in fights, other than as field medic (I wonder why it is ok for a woman to be a medic, but not a machine gunner: she will not be raped but the machine gunner would?) will brake some males' views and machismo, I give you this. I know the feeling. Some women dare to run faster and longer than me... I survived and adjusted. Some are more qualified, brighter, and have positions I will never reach. Well, yeah, hurts a bit, but again, my problem not theirs...
    As part of engineering, I never saw material adapted to specific needs. And if some women (as some men) will not be able to fulfill the requirements of a job, they will quite. When some men couldn't cross the finish line of the last training, well, they didn't get the badge nor the job. It will be the same for women.
    Last edited by Brenus; 12-05-2015 at 18:56.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  26. #26
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,474

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great" Isn't it the job description of a field medic? Women are field medic for year... And women is other armies did quite a good job, (even it was denied later) i.e. Roza Shanina
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Roza Shanina.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	320.1 KB 
ID:	17055

    I could do the same for tank crew, pilots, air crew etc.
    Yes and no. Just because one is a medic doesnt mean one will be in the infantry units fighting in the streets. They can also be in the field hospitals and things like that.

    Not saying that there arent women who can meet or even exceed the capabilities of men. There certainly are are that is a great thing. But most people are merely worried that the standards, which exist for a reason, will be lowered to meet a political goal. That is it.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  27. #27
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    "Not saying that there arent women who can meet or even exceed the capabilities of men." I agree. What I challenged is the assumption that in order to have women in fighting posts/position, it will be a need to lower the standards. I knew a lot of soldiers who couldn't drag a "200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear". But because they were draftees, they were still soldiers. And I saw them be faster and more efficient than a platoon of Foreign Legionnaires on obstacles courses. My best sniper was probably as light in weight than young women I met during my life, but he could put a bullet where he wanted, wind (whatever direction), rain or fog didn't really mattered. However, he didn't match the "dragging a teammate of 200 pounds" etc. But the fittest and strongest enemy would have some trouble with him.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  28. #28
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?" Err, no. Sorry...
    When some men couldn't cross the finish line of the last training, well, they didn't get the badge nor the job. It will be the same for women.
    I must simply assume you ignorant of the US military and its political correctness and internal politics or the politics of the current administration.

    It is not the women that will reduce moral and readiness per say but dysfunctional units where everyone can not do their jobs properly and some receive preferred treatment.

    Woman have been in artillery units for quite some time. However in gun units you don’t often find them on gun crews. They are in the FDC and with FIST. Positions they fill not form merit or experience but for lack of physical abilities. This also tends to tie up promotable slots. It results in stagnating promotions for men serving on gun crews and accelerated promotions for less qualified woman serving in those slots.
    In rocket artillery units it is not so much the case. Loading is done by mechanical means and women are as capable as anyone else.

    This situation is not the fault of the women, nor the men. It is not even the fault of unit leadership. It is an ad hoc arrangement to make the best of a situation foisted on them directly from the highest levels of the military and the executive. But that does not lessen the resentment and disfunction of people in those organisations.
    Last edited by Fisherking; 12-05-2015 at 22:56.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  29. #29

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

    And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  30. #30
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

    And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.

    Of course they will reassess and reanalyse. Women have participated in combat since it began. It always seems to shake out that it was not the greatest idea conceived by mankind.

    Heretofore it was always an act of desperation by a society faced with destruction, or of individuals motivated to try it. Israel has a small population compared to all its neighbours. Everyone else is motivated by equal rights.

    People have a perfect right to aspire to anything. They don’t necessarily have the abilities to carry it off. If they did we would all be sports stars, movie stars or perhaps nobel laureates.

    While technology may remedy some of these problems, overall, we are engaged in another exercise of rediscovering past wisdom.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO