USA gives bigger guns to women

[Husar]

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Apparently the move came in spite of evil reactionists with outdated ideas who want to keep women below a glass ceiling and pay them 70 cents on the dollar, but I think it's only fair after the gays were officially allowed all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.

[Graphic]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

[Hooahguy]

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?

[Montmorency]

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Montmorency]

That's pretty tangential to my question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Montmorency]

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?

[Fisherking]

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.

[Montmorency]

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)?

[Fisherking]

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