Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

I am thinking too along those same lines you mentioned. I doubt most women want any part of combat.

We lost one days ago in Afghanistan. I saw it reported on ABC news yet find nothing on the Department of Army site. If she was killed there, most likely she walked on an explosive charge.

I am not able to use google and find any female killed in Afghanistan this year. I am not clear why they gave the name on TV.

 

Some women do want combat. It isn't until Pre-mob (pre deployment training) where they change their tune. There are still a couple here and there that feel they can hack it after pre-mob. We have one woman try and quit her MOS as an MP after she had to do the vehicle IED training in pre-mob. Claimed it was too real.

 

Political correctness.

But before political correctness the U.S. Army War College did conduct a study who made the best soldiers and race, ethnicity, gender, education were all looked at and factored into the study.

The study is found on the USAWC website but it's no longer an easy website to navigate and since the study isn't PC it might have been removed during the Obama administration. I noticed I couldn't find the study five or so years ago. -> https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/


From what I remember from the study...
Who made the best infantrymen ?

A white male of European decent, most North American native Americans or an Asian (Oriental) of Japanese descent, 24 to 28 years of age, two years of a college education, participated in competitive and contact organized and unorganized sports while growing up.

 

Though as I keep saying, I'm totally cool with women in combat so long as they pass every ounce of training equal to men's standards with zero exceptions.

 

As Monte Python would say... now for something completely different:



I wonder how heavy a ruck sack that dog can carry.

 

i guess women need to get killed in combat as well. As to them needing to wage war, don't we men do enough not to force them into combat?

 

But standards have already been lowered in all of the U.S. military services in the name of political correctness.

 

To which I always reply that men can be in combat provided they can equal every physical capability of women with zero exceptions. Of course, that would mean no man unless with a birth defect could be in combat.

 

I believe had women been in my unit in Germany, they would submit to sex or get raped. Sure, a lot of men are decent. But rapes are not done by the decent.

 

The women in the Army in my day were not with combat units. They were known as the WAC.

https://history.army.mil/brochures/WAC/WAC.HTM

Thousands of women served.

 

You and I Robert are "old salts" and I never ever heard of a female serving in the military being raped. It just didn't happen.

Back in the day you had WAC's, WAVES, WAF's, SPAR's and Women Marines.

They were billeted in barracks with big signs saying "OFF LIMITS" and patrolled by MP's.

The only enlisted Women Marines I ever saw were at MCRDSD at Regimental HQ's and aboard Camp Pendleton Brigade HQ's and base HQ's.

The only other time I saw women in uniform were Navy and Army nurses who were all commissioned officers and off limits to all male enlisted men.

The only women who served at sea on U.S. Navy ships were Navy nurses on hospital ships like the USS Repose.

Saw a few WAVE's aboard the Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado in San Diego.

 

As Congress concluded under the Bush regime, FAR more men are raped in the military than women. I guess that doesn't bother you.

 

I never saw women in units in Germany. However during two stints of training at Ft. Ord CA, I did see one billet of WAC and never got close to talking to any.

 

I do not recall homosexuals being in any of the army units I served in. No rapes took place.

And as a civilian, I never met any of the sort like Bernie Madoff so of course those don't bother me at all. They bother others though.

 

What is "****ing stupid" is pretending that everyone in every combat unit are all "equally" capable. If "equally capable" was the standard, in the entire USA military you MIGHT find 2, but even that is unlikely.

NOR is the issue even everyone is "sufficiently capable," the only rational measure. Rather, the goal should be (impossible to 100% obtain) is everyone "sufficiently capable" for their assignments and missions. Your view of the perfect cloned equally capable universal soldier was a movie title, not a possible reality.

I have oft posted there are roles in the military, combat or otherwise, likely only suited for males. There are roles in the military, combat and otherwise, better suited to females - though that may be a lesser number. The difference is you believe there is no situation whatsoever that women could be capable of unless being "equally" capable as men - and that is nonsense. "Sufficiently capable" means just that.

What you really are posting is your view that the North Korean military is vastly superior to the USA and could kick our ass in any battle - because intelligence and technology is irrelevant. Brainiacs - including female brainiacs - DO go into combat theaters and every bit as much under fire - sometimes more - that your military experience. Your view could be described as declaring our military should be primitive, crude and with all focus away from technology. Your view could cost us casualties and success.

For this discussion, and I do understand (I think) where you are coming from, you need to state clearly what your definition of "combat" is and what it is not. Also, do you mean all branches of the service, or just Army and Marines? Even if that, what roles do you consider "combat?" Are Army and Marine helicopter crews "combat" personnel? I suspect that during WW2 an infantryman told someone in a bomber crew "you guys aren't combat units, we are" probably could get someone a busted nose. Their casualties were massive.

Here's a trivial question (of course you might Google it but can you answer without doing so?) What branch of service had the highest rate of KIA casualties?

 

Yes, it's very ****ing stupid. If you don't meet the standard, you're chaptered out. Women have far lower standards, which is why the infantry is incredibly difficult for them, as they must pass the male standards.

I'm not sure why that makes you so sad

 

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2018/03/05/where-are-the-female-marines/

 

Notably you never respond other than just repeating "male standards" as an asserted truism. No logic or reasoning and instead declare that there is exactly one - and only one - form of combat the military every has been or ever will be: Running 20 miles on foot with an 80 pound pack and otherwise all the military should be be abolished except for those heavy load running squads. In other words, in your view there never was nor will be anyone who matters whatsoever except what you did in your past 15 minutes of fame. For your messages, it comes down to that.

 

It would take an extreme level of stubbornness for any female to put themselves thru that. A woman we know was invited to try to be the first female SERE that would actually do rescue work, not just as an instructor, due to the combination of knowledge base, personal history, and blitzing pre-enlistment tests already able to meet even male standards. BUT before agreeing investigated further and realized the INTENSE commitment of officers were a majority of the opinion of ArmySoldier - meaning it would be certain that in their "no women under any circumstance" making it thru would literally be impossible no matter what standards she met. Military policy and what officers actually do can often be quite different. If trainers and COs want to blow someone out there are 1,001 ways to do it.

In short, it would really suck because it certain that quickly she would have a CO like ArmySoldier's messages, who would make it his personal crusade to blow her out of his unit - even if he got a verbal reprimand for doing so. Women just too intolerable to him. A woman we know in another branch has been told by more than one CO "I've never had a woman in my unit and I never will." (Wrong woman to make that kind of challenge too - they each lost the "who gets blown out" contest because she also is a brainiac including in interpersonal conflict tactics. "Give an idiot enough rope and he'll hang himself.")

I would advise any female to NOT go into the Marines if seeking a combat role because there are too many emotionally insecure-around-women men and male pigs in the Marines - to use feminist language. Even if she makes it thru basic, there are endless officers on her career path determined that no women will be in his unit and no woman will advance no matter what she does. A woman wanting to go into a combat role should join the Army - and even then keep her expectations low and figure that - like it or not - she will be steered in a different direction irregardless of her performance.

 

Male standards are the ATAC standards. If a female OR male cannot meet them, they are not conditioned.

That will never change.

 

They's just keep lowering the standards.

Could you pass the U.S. Army PFT that was used during WW ll ?

In the name of political correctness the Marine Corps again dumbed down the PFT in the name of diversity. If you don't want to do pull ups during the PFT... you no longer have to do pull-ups.

Not sure exactly when, either during the 80's or 90's all branches of the service dumbed down the pull-up. Chin-ups (palms in) were counted as pull-ups (palms out)
The chin-up is a whole lot easier to perform than the pull-up.

When I was in the Corps the PFT consisted of five events. Today it's down to three events. During WW ll the Marine Corps PFT consisted of six or seven events. The freaking duck waddle !

 

What were the PT standards then? The human body has evolved a lot since then and running longer distances and faster is more normal now than it was then, IMO. I'd be interested to see what the old timers did.

 

I can provide the U.S. Army PFT used during WW ll. The Marine Corps WW ll PFT isn't on the internet.

Notice that the 50 yard duck waddle wasn't part of the Army PFT but was for the Marine Corps PFT.
I suppose the duck waddle isa used today as a form of punishment.



When I had to take the PFT it consisted of five events.
push ups
pull ups
sit ups
squat thrust
3 mile run.

Then there was the CMC today known as the CRT. Many events have been eliminated today that use to be part of the combat readiness test five decades ago.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4...#v=onepage&q=marine corps duck waddle&f=false

 

Am I missing the minimums somewhere? Is there a chart like this:

 

What I have read, the scoring has changed little if at all since WW ll, just how the the exercise is performed like allowing palms in on pull-ups and events have been eliminated.

Soldiers were in better physical shape during the Civil War or during WW l than during WW ll. Soldiers came from the farms and even in the cities manual labor was heavily involved in manufacturing industries. They were just in better shape back in the day.

My generation, the Vietnam War generation were in excellent physical shape as teenagers.
90% were able to pass the military physical and the other 10% surprisingly who failed always seemed to be the high school jocks who had bad knees, bad backs and even bone spurs because of sport injuries.

80% were able to pass the PFT before even showing up at recruit training.

Look at old photos from the 60's, you have to search really hard to find someone who was obese or over weight.

Back when I was in high school, we had to take a PFT including girls.

Why was that ? President Eisenhower but mostly JFK.

The Federal Government Takes on Physical Fitness

After World War II, many Americans worried that US citizens, especially the young, were growing overweight and out of shape. The nation's economy had changed dramatically, and with it the nature of work and recreation changed. Mechanization had taken many farmers out of the fields and much of the physical labor out of farm work. Fewer factory jobs demanded heavy labor. Television required watching rather than doing. Americans were beginning to confront a new image of themselves and their country, and they did not always like what they saw.

As a military man, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was probably already sensitive to the issue of physical fitness. Military officers grumbled about the condition of draftees during World War II and the Korean War. But concern about fitness peaked in the mid-1950s with publication of an international study that found American children far less fit than children in other countries. In response, President Eisenhower established the President's Council on Youth Fitness with Executive Order 10673, issued on July 16, 1956.



Despite widespread support inside and outside the government, the council never quite found its way during the Eisenhower years. Personality conflicts and organizational difficulties often bogged down the council, but the real problem was that no one was clear about its purpose. Did fitness include intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and social fitness as well as physical fitness? Uncertainty about the meaning of fitness went hand in hand with uncertainty about actions to be taken. And for many connected with the council's work, the idea of the nation's youth constrained by a state-ordered fitness program seemed a little "red," even fascist. The goal and ideal of the council during this Republican administration was to make fitness a nationally recognized local problem.

In the end, another crucial factor that prevented the council from reaching its full potential was the inattention of the president. Having established this council, Eisenhower rarely spoke on the subject of fitness and did not appear at any of its annual conferences. John F. Kennedy's approach to the problem of fitness would be very different.

John F. Kennedy showed his commitment to improving the nation's fitness even before he took the oath of office. After the election, he published "The Soft American" in Sports Illustrated. The article established four points as the basis of his proposed program, including a White House Committee on Health and Fitness; direct oversight by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; an annual Youth Fitness Congress to be attended by state governors; and the assertion that physical fitness was very much the business of the federal government.

Only a month after the inauguration, the new administration convened a conference on physical fitness, reorganized the President's Council on Youth Fitness, and chose a new director, Charles "Bud" Wilkinson, a highly successful University of Oklahoma football coach. True to Kennedy's style, the new executive for the council was named a special consultant to the president. The president's council unquestionably became President Kennedy's council.

The Fifty-Mile Hike
Kennedy's success was not just a matter of bureaucratic changes. Unlike his predecessor, Kennedy addressed the issue of physical fitness frequently in his public pronouncements and assigned new projects to the council. Perhaps his most famous intervention in the area of fitness was the fifty-mile hike. In late 1962, President Kennedy discovered an executive order from Theodore Roosevelt challenging US Marine officers to finish fifty miles in twenty hours. Kennedy passed the document to Marine General David M. Shoup. The president suggested that Shoup bring it up as his own discovery and challenge modern day Marines to duplicate this feat. Kennedy went on to say that:


Should your report to me indicate that the strength and stamina of the modern Marine is at least equivalent to that of his antecedents, I will then ask Mr. Salinger to look into the matter personally and give me a report on the fitness of the White House Staff.

In conversations with his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, Kennedy left no doubt that "look[ing] into the matter personally" would involve Salinger walking fifty miles himself. A well-padded individual with a sense of humor, Salinger turned his efforts to avoid the hike into an open joke. He finally released a statement on February 12, 1963, in which he publicly declined the honor. Attorney General Robert Kennedy undertook the hike, clad in leather oxford shoes, and completed the full distance through snow and slush. Salinger pointed to him as proof of the administration's fitness.

But the real impact of the fifty-mile hike was with the public at large. Many Americans took the hike as a challenge from their president. The Kennedy council capitalized on this enthusiasm with a national publicity campaign on physical fitness. The campaign was organized, extensive, media-savvy, and above all, countrywide. Material was produced for print, radio, television, and display advertising. For broadcast alone, 650 television kits and 3,500 radio kits were sent out. All of this was in addition to the continued encouragement through public relations outlets. The physical fitness theme even appeared in the comics page, as seventeen major syndicated cartoonists took up the subject, including Charles Schulz of "Peanuts" fame.

The oddest contribution to the effort may have been the "Chicken Fat" song. Meredith Willson, creator of The Music Man, wrote the song. It was sung by Robert Preston, the star of the musical. "Chicken Fat" was produced in a three-minute, radio-friendly version and a six-minute version to accompany schoolchildren during workout routines. The song didn't get much airplay, but the chorus of "go, you chicken fat, go!" was ingrained in the memories of tens of thousands of children doing sit-ups in school gyms around the country.

The Fitness Program...
continue -> https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Physical-Fitness.aspx