Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations’ militaries

Hand to hand combat if rare but happens. Stuff like humpin' a 30 lbs M60 in addition to the rest of your gear isn't. The fact that elite, hand picked and trained women couldn't cut it in Ranger School should settle it.

 

I spell . . . tuna!

 

Doesn't settle anything. Give an example of hand to hand combat actually occurring since WWII.

However, as long as Rangers are defined to limited roles in combat for which there is no circumstance they might every have to act outside those very limited roles, I suppose it would make sense. For example, as I stated, unloading trucks at depots and only where is it 100% certain they can be protected by other forces.

Another aspect that contradicts your claim is that given now there are far more men who want to enlist than are able, then the standard should be that those who are selected STRICTLY is based upon who is the strongest and fastest. For example, if there are 50 who want to but only 5 needed, they would be tested by physical standards of strength and speed - and it would be required that the top 5 are who are selected. Or better yet, have elimination boxing matches and the final 5 is who is accepted - the other 45 rejected. So, for example, when you went into Ranger school that would have to mean that you were faster and stronger than anyone who was rejected and then over everyone who didn't graduate from Ranger school - this than the standard also for staying in the Rangers.

Would you agree that would be the best way to narrow down who is allowed to enlist and who is allowed to enter Ranger school, with this also the basis for selection who increasing in rank in their military career?

 

No. The standard for Ranger School are only the minimum standards for acceptance. Many times the victory doesn't go to the fastest or the strongest. Ranger School is a mind game. Most folks who don't make it quit.

 

It was back in 1970, we were at Chapel Flats rifle range at Camp Pendleton for rifle requalification. I was the NCO in charge of the butts. It's where the targets are lowered and a disk is inserted into the bullet hole on the target marking where the shooter hit the target.

Just before we headed to the butts a Lt. Col. appeared and said "Every Marine will qualify."

There were two Marines assigned to every target. I noticed one Marine with a pencil poking a hole into the target and then inserting the disk into the pencil hole.

"What in the (*)(*)(*)(*) is going on here private" !!! Then a Staff Sergeant butted in and said they were following orders, "every Marine will qualify" even if there's going to be some cheating taking place.

 

I heard much the same thing from private sources. Ranger Class 8-83

 

There was a lot of cheating taking place during the Clinton administration just like during the Obama administration in the name of political correctness.

As the saying goes and it's true, every time the U.S. military is used for social engineering, soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen either bleed or get killed.

Remember Kara Hultgreen ? In 1993 Commander in Chief Bill Clinton issued a PC order that there will be a female F-14 pilot ASAP.

Hultgreen was killed in October 1994 when her F-14 crashed into the sea during a landing attempt on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

 

Weren't all the first batch of female fighter pilots either killed in crashed or grounded for incompetence?

 

I think that information is classified.

Might have to search Wikileaks.

 

I've read that back during Vietnam essentially everyone - except no woman of course - qualified.

 

You can believe whichever side of that you want, but if you point is to claim no men have committed pilot error while landing that is totally false. Rather, you point out that the goal is to find any example to claim women are ALL unit, ignoring any incidents involving men as if they never happen.

Partial list of F14 crashes by MALE pilots, including carrier landings:
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/f14-history-crash-date06.htm

Clearly then men are inherently incompetent to serve as combat pilots.

 

Comparing the worse men to the best women?

 

I think your view is the worst men can try and the best women shouldn't be allowed to.

 

Lt. Hultgreen was fast tracked through flight training. The Navy was just following orders from the CnC, I want to see a woman in the cockpit of a F-14 ASAP.

Political correctness killed Lt. Hultgreen.

 

Confucius say, "Woman who fly airplane upside down have nasty crack up."

 

Confucius say, "Woman who fly airplane upside down have nasty crack up."

 

If men and women were 100% physiologically identical, then yes it would look fishy. But men and women have wildly different physiologies. You are apparently following some sort of "disparate impact" idea where you assume that men and women are exactly the same and any statistical difference is de facto proof of discrimination.

So as I said, you're being ridiculous.

 

The political correctness has been slaughtering men.

 

Your message is 100% deliberately false since I have never posted anything to even hint that women are the same physiologically as men in any fashion.

What is ridiculous is claiming modern warfare is fought with boxing and wrestling. You got NOTHING in reality as any actual combat example. Obviously it infuriates you when Trump claims he is going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" when in your view he should send in unarmed military men to beat up ISIS. our men wearing 100 pound packs while doing so.

 

One of the fundamental of combat is violence of action. Look at the murder rate and you should get a clue as to why men make better soldiers.

 

From your own source:

1.) NAVY JAG concluded "mechanical failure of left engine: "The Navy’s JAG was assigned with the investigation of the crash and to arrange a report of their findings. The JAG concluded the accident was caused by a mechanical failure of the left engine. The JAG’s “report” rejected the notion that there were widespread accusations that Lt. Hultgreen was not qualified to be a fighter pilot. The report claimed that the F-14 had a history of accidents and that the aircraft’s two Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan engines were underpowered for the airframe.

2. Top Command concurred: "Top brass in the Navy vehemently stated that Lt. Hultgreen’s death was nothing more than a very unfortunate and devastating event. It was not because she was a woman. It wasn’t because of pressure from progressives and feminists. High ranking Navy officials flat-out said it wasn’t her fault.".

3.) "Of 13 male pilots repeating what she did, 12 would also have died: The Navy even held a simulator demonstration with 13 male F-14 pilots to demonstrate that the accident was completely unpreventable. Only one of those pilots—the commanding officer—was able to “survive” the conditions replicated in the simulator."

And I provided a link to NUMEROUS F14 crashes - NONE shot down. So do claim these were due to F14 mechanical failures (you claiming that doesn't happen) or that many male F14 pilots crashed their aircraft out of incompetence. PICK ONE - for which either one disproves the point you claim to be making.

But you claim they are all liars. You claim that JAGs are liars. You claim that Navy commanders are liars. You claim that 12 of the 13 male pilots in simulators also are liars. Instead, you cite some other division that gave NO basis for their counter finding that it was pilot error.

 

Ahem...

I didn't say anything about boxing and wrestling, so I'm unclear as to what point you're trying to make with that, but you have a point about the packs, although it's closer to 125 lbs. I'm not sure why you dismiss that so flippantly.

 

No, rather is shows serious problems with men in combat as 1.) they are far more likely to commit atrocities, which turn the civilians into underground fighters and 2.) men who are murders are far more stupid than women killers, because women usually get away with it.

But the real flaw it your claims are the absolutes of it. For THIS reasoning of yours there has never been any female murderer of any man because it would be impossible.

 

You claim that it is raw physical strength that matters for all combat roles and positions. I commented before that the Marine who was a squad leader in the heaviest fighting district of Afghanistan say he had his squad and himself dump half the weight of all the "crap" they were required to carry as soon as out of sight. Prior to being in combat he was vehemently against women in combat roles such as his. He did not after his combat tour of duties and experience. In who he wanted in his squad and who was most effective, raw physical strength was not a factor. This was his realization. He didn't care how big squad members were or their race and would not care their gender. Are they tactically smart, have the sense of "squad," courageous under fire, aggressive, shoot well, psychologically right for the challenges and goals - that is what mattered and who could do more push ups or carry a pack fastest wasn't a factor in reality. And that makes sense.

If our combat military consisted of solely Infantry wearing 125 pound packs our military wouldn't even qualify as a 3rd world military and would be in the bottom 10% of militaries in the world. Who dismisses the topic so "flippantly" is your view that it is only Infantry, Rangers, Marines, men with rifles and light arms that are our only combat troops that matter.

Most of those advocating no women in combat roles are taking the false position that the ONLY combat roles are men with rifles carrying 100+ pound packs and that is absolutely false. Currently, not 5% of US forces "in combat" are soldiers or Marines with rifles carrying 100+ pound packs. The others are claiming women are incompetent at everything, other than possibly sneering some insult they see as humorous.

What is being done is desperately searching for any position where physical strength is particularly important, and making the 100% false assertion this then constitutes ALL combat positions and roles in the US military. For those FEW roles that require big muscular guys, use big muscular guys. Again, that would seem mostly to apply to loading and unloading trucks, ships and aircraft. I'm ok with Army versus Marines are going to have a boxing match, send men.

In a way this all is going nowhere since no issues I raise are debated but only ignored. So, again, I understand the necessity to stroke the egos of low ranking grunts on the ground whose safety is the least important to the military in terms of equipment and most likely to suffer casualties by explaining how vastly important they are, the "tip of the spear' etc. And when special roles such as Ranger, Green Beret, Seal etc are filled, they can take pride in that they went thru grueling training and that most can't and don't make it, making them extra special. They are then sent into notably dangerous situations. So stroke their egos, sure. BUT it is 100% false to claim they are THE only combat roles and personnel that matter or that they are THE decisive factor in in war. They are not.

In terms of combat, the most decisive is related to air power in it's various forms. Even the Marines and Army recognize that air power is critical, why they insisted on having their own aircraft, own helicopters and air crews.How much does superior strength matter to that? Little to none. For most serving on ships in the Navy, great physical strength matters little to none. The list of "combat" roles for which physical strength is all but irrelevant is very long.