Army's Readiness and Morale Destroyed

This could have been an attachment to the " The rape of the US Marine Corps: a lunatic drive for ‘fairness’ " thread that is active in the Political Opinions & Beliefs PF Forum, < http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...e-us-marine-corps-lunatic-drive-fairness.html >

But this thread is what political correctness has already done to the U.S. Army and the other thread is about what will be happening real soon to the U.S. Marine Corps because of liberal political correctness social engineering of our military. Well at least it looks like the Obama administration backed down this past Friday of ordering co-ed basic training in the Marine Corps that was supposed to go into affect this April.

But I digress, the U.S. Army combat readiness is at it's lowest level since the 1930's and the morale with in the U.S. Army is at it's lowest level since the post Vietnam War mid and late 1970's.

 

Your fixation against women is extreme. Apparently, in your opinion the combat men of the military are so emotionally weak, so overly sensitive, that merely seeing a rare woman causes those men to break down sobbing, terrified at the prospect of being around a woman. If military men are that emotional vunerable, psychologically insecure and so easily broken, maybe we must shift to an all female force.

 

The view of the OPer is that of an older retired military man who, in my opinion, does not have a real clue as to what actually is happening in regards to women possibly being added to areas of the military that require intense combat and physical demands. Here is what is REALLY happening - and in the various branches of the military:

From the top, recruiters are being told to watch for that rare, very special woman who is extraordinary, the best of the best - physically, intelligence and psychologically. If so, the recruiter is to pass this on - and a pitch then is made from outside normal recruiting paths to particularly check her out, test her, and then try to talk her into going a path no women have gone thru, stressing it will be difficult.

But if the woman acknowledges increasingly men like the OP within the military set out to talk her out of it. For the woman I know who went thru this, it became as extreme as telling her that her training would include her being tortured to condition her for the prospect of being tortured, including locked in a small cage unable to move for weeks and her fingers would be broken. She was repeatedly reminded no woman has ever been in such a role and if she didn't make it, then she would be completely booted out of the military. With that, she opted out of the program - and in that men in the military with the view of the OPer succeed in their goal of keeping women out.

I see the viewpoint of the OP - though I think he really believes it - as absurd. The military is huge. The notion that a few women - very few - would totally destroy the combat forces of the USA causing the men to all quit and throw themselves on the ground in terror, the American military now doomed to military defeat. Of course there are weak-link men in the military too, but that doesn't doom our combat forces. ONLY a woman - even just 1 woman - in a battalion and that battalion is doomed to all being killed and defeated in combat.

There is an historic precidence in the racial desegregation of the military. The most intense opposition to racial desegregation came from the Marines. Overall, the military was limited to only 10% blacks. The Marines refused to allow any blacks to go thru their regular basic training camp. Many in the military argued, like the OP, that racial integration would so "demoralize" white troops that many would not re-enlist and few new would sign up. It was declared a fact - all sorts of high rankers in the military and particularly the Marines, claiming that whites and blacks cannot operate together in the same units, plus it strongly suggested that blacks lacked the intelligence. A whole list of reasons racial desegregation was given. That there would be crimes between whites and blacks. Whites and blacks learn at different rates. Blacks lack command ability, so resources wasted due to their inability to advance.

Does the OPer agree? Did the 1948 desegregation order destroy the Marines? The Army?

VERY few women will go thru this intimidation gauntlet thrown up against them by men in the military committed to assuring no women are in male-only areas of the military.

 

Shouldn't we try out women as NFL linebackers first before we put them in Combat MOS's?

Why isn't there an outcry about that?

 

The US military of today could whip ass against the US military of the past, so yeah, this is one of those "Why back when I was a kid, you could get a gallon of gas for a quarter and they pumped it for you too" threads.

 

source: "Daily Caller"

that says it all

 

There's still that dirty little secret on the "Rock" that nobody wants to talk about and the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps have had 65 years to fix but can't because it would be politically incorrect or maybe even unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Not under Obama's PC rules of engagement.

 

I don't understand the Army and Marine motive to have their foot soldiers / Marines carry all of theiir gear on their backs. These load-outs can weigh 100 - 120 lbs. This wreaks havoc on the backs and knees of even the most physically fit males after marching for 30km or more.

The future is exo-skeletons. Essentially technology will replace brute strength, evening the playing field somewhat.

Ultimately a foot soldiers job is to shoot straight. They march with the gear on their backs, and I agree females are at a serious disadvantage in this aspect, but their primary purpose is ultimately to engage bad guys. Females have the strength to pull a trigger...with exo-skeleton technology, the heavy lifting will be machine aided.

Beyond the physical strength issue, is the issue of mixed gender combat units. Many are against this as well as the unique esprit de corps necessary for a combat unit to bond would only be hampered by mixing males and females.

 

My fixation isn't on women but on political correctness, the social engineering experimentation of the U.S. military, politicizing of the military and the agenda of the radical left to change the culture, customs, traditions of the American military in the name of diversity.

 

There's an Army War College paper where they blame the field commanders for basically having grunts over weighted with to much gear.

We use to carry a few days of C-rats when in the bush. C-rats were heavy, all canned rations. During the early 80's they came out with MRE's a lot lighter. So what do the field commanders do when ten pounds of rations were eliminated from the load grunts had to carry ? They found twenty more pounds of something else to be carried.

 

Rigors of war leave troops battling arthritis at a young age

source:http://www.stripes.com/news/rigors-of-war-leave-troops-battling-arthritis-at-a-young-age-1.156110

 

I was on a tarmac, and noticed a few rucks outside an aircraft and wanted to assist the loadmaster. I was shocked at the weight. Easily 100 pounds. They train with these on long marches...plus in the field they are wearing 30 - 50 pounds of body armor. I can't help but think the Army is ruining the health of their young soldiers by insisting on treating them like pack mules.

 

We had a Marine in our NGF Platoon at Hoi An who was TAD to an Australian unit for a few months further south and he mentioned how the Aussies did it smart. When they went out in the bush they wore no flak jacket, no helmet, no rucksack just their rifle, ammunition, water and any rations were carried in a sock hanging from their belts. Some had a machete of bolo knife because they stayed off the roads and trails.

In 2003-2006 many of us Vietnam, Korean and even a few WW ll vets would watch the news of our soldiers and Marines in Iraq and what we noticed instead of dismounting from their vehicles they were fighting from their vehicles instead of advancing and engaging the enemy. Why ? All that body armor they are wearing it makes them less mobile on their feet.

 

I feel sorry for what is happening in the Marines.

They are being affected by the times. Hey, maybe now Caitlyn Jenner can join this proud organization!

 

Please. A company of women on their period could mow down the 101st in like 10 minutes and still have time to get a good game of softball in.

 

Catlyn Jenner can join under the current administration. All branches of the military have been ordered by the the Obama administration that transgenders can openly serve and they have the choice if they want to wear a male uniform or female uniform and have a choice who they want to shower with or take a crap with. It's been in affect since last August. I suppose they can cross dress any time they want. One day wearing a male uniform and the next day a female uniform. It doesn't get any better, the taxpayers will also be paying for penis removal operations. Maybe penis attachment operations ?

excerpt:

This is the PC military the liberals want standing post protecting America, an army of Corporal Klingers.

 

Well combat medics won't have any problem looking for blood for a blood transfusion, will they ?

 

Spin mops would get the job done.

 

attempting to exclude women from combat roles in engaging in sexist politically correct social engineering

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) is a mop ?

I'm old "Corps" we had swabs.

 

Tell you what. We can discuss that when it becomes a reality.

As I have often said, I only discuss such things when they actually exist in a functioning manner. Not as some kind of "someday future concept" idea that more then likely will not be seen for decades, if ever. After all, it was a few decades ago that people were saying our soldiers would be flying into combat on 1 and 2 man flying contraptions. We have not seen those yet, have we?

No question there. I am 51, and have arthritis in both knees. Primarily from my time in the Grunts over 20+ years ago.

However, most of that equipment is badly needed. About half of the weight is in stuff directly needed to operate. Personal weapon, ammunition, water, and protective equipment.

Right after I joined, we moved from the old Vietnam era "Flack Jacket" and WWII era M1 helmet to the PASGT. Roughly 15-20 pounds, helmet and vest.

Today, we generally use the IOTV and ACH, at around 45 pounds. Over double the weight, but magnitudes of improvement over what we used a generation before.

And the same with water. During my first 2 enlistments, 2 quarts of water was considered "enough". Today, most go into combat with 1.5 to 2+ gallons of water. Once again, over double then what we took a generation before.

Meanwhile, most of the other equipment is better and lighter. But if given the choice, I will take the newer equipment any day over what we used when I first joined during the first Reagan Administration. Surviveability rates are much higher because of it too.

However, the "100 pound packs" are really only used when you are not operating from a basecamp.

Say like Marines, leaving their amphibious assets on the beach and moving inland. Or getting out of a helicopter and moving to set up a basecamp. Once the basecamp is set up, we generally patrol with only 50-75 pounds total. Most of that in protective equipment and weapons, plus water and 1 day of rations. The other 100 pounds is left behind in the basecamp. We do not need it, since we are going back there when the patrol is done.

During field training in the Marines, we would go to the field with roughly 100 pounds of equipment total. Once we reached our training area, we dumped the packs and only operated on what we carried on our bodies. Body armor and helmet, water, weapon, 2 MREs in an "ass pack". The ALICE, sleeping bags, shelter half, etc, that all stayed behind where we were set up to sleep. Even if hit with a "simulated attack" we dumped the pack and went in with only what we needed.

And myself, I believe "exoskeletons" will happen about the same time we are ready to enter the Battle of Klandathu.

 

Military loadouts for foot soldiers have consistently been in the 70-80 lb. range going back to the Romans. Realistically, they need the gear so the alternative is technology to take some of the load off of the weight bearing joints.

I don't think exoskeletons are complete science fiction at the moment. There are prototypes in development.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/video/robo...-batterypowered-exoskeletons-on-real-soldiers

 

And we still carry the 70-80 pounds of gear. But add to that another 40-50 pounds of protective equipment.

Plus the fact that we carry our own gear in the Infantry. We do not have a "baggage train" in the rear with things like tents, kitchens, stewards, ferriers, and the like. That is why such forces today are known as "Light Infantry", where as the Romans were "Heavy Infantry". Modern Infantry units are largely self-contained, where as ancient armies really required a large logistical train as well as auxilliaries to fill in gaps they themselves did not have (slingers, scouts, cavalry, etc).

But as for the skeletons, I heard they were coming way back in 1995 when I got to wear a prototype that Hughes was working on. It is now over 20 years later, and I do not see us any closer to that goal. Heck, we do not even have the personal radios and BFT in place, nor the super-duper advanced weapons they have promised us for decades.

In short, other then a few pieces here and there, our Infantry largely goes in the exact same way as they did 33 years ago when I first joined the military. And I do not expect that to change in the next 33 years either, to be honest.

 

The weight of the Infantryman&#8217;s combat load is too great.

Lightening the load can be accomplished by lighter systems, off-loading what isn't needed, in say a firefight and alternative modes of transportation. I can't help but think carrying 85% of your body weight, in some cases, is not going to severely degrade a soldier's ;physical performance.

We spent all this money on the V-22, as an example, why not utilitize it to move some of the gear normally kept in the rear to the front instead of putting it on the back of the foot soldier and expecting him to simply "suck it up."

I'd be more impressed if a two-star or above, the folks making these sorts of decisions ultmately, went on a 20km ruck march with 80 lbs. of batttle rattle on their back, up and down hills to gain a sense of what should clearly be contrary to Army doctrine.

It's too heavy...this isn't so much about lowering the standards so females will have an easier go of it. Even the most physically fit males are being pushed to their physical limits with these modern combat loadouts. Yes, survivability has increased but at the expense of physical performance. Seems to me a compromise is in order.

 

In a discussion about women in combat arms it inevitably seems to move towards talking about ways to make the infantryman's job less physically demanding. That seems to be a tell that people who publicly support women in combat MOS's deep down don't believe it, otherwise this topic about weight loads would never come up.