Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Do Women Make Better Soldiers Than Men?

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by Volga Boatman, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    I think it all just depends on the person: they either have the ability to get the job done or they don't. IF they can do the job they can have the job; if the can't do the job there should be no modification or the requirements. If the job requires the troop to hump a 60lb ruck 25 miles up hill that's the just the way it is.
     
    urqh likes this.
  2. Biak

    Biak Boy from Illinois Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    9,079
    Likes Received:
    2,474
    Kidney stones? I've had three. First one I didn't sleep for 38 hours. 3am wake up, curled up on the bathroom floor pleading to pass out. Throwing up after trying to drink water since I felt completely dehydrated then going outside so as to not wake up the wife. If I hadn't been so afraid of breaking my hand on the fence (by missing the 1/2 boards and hitting the 4x4 post) would have beat the He** out of the fence. Next two were of lesser pain but still not something to ever want to experience again.
    As for Women making BETTER Soldiers than Men, In most aspects I see no problems. Better? Nope. Just as good as? To an extent. As has been rehashed, it all comes down to the combination of stamina and strength. I have no doubt some Women could do well and have done so, but they are an Elite few. Much like the Rangers or SEALS.
     
  3. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I had lithotripsy for kidney stones. It felt like someone spent a few hours kicking me in the back. Kept up for a few days until I passed the small pieces.

    That said, I will reiterate what I posted earlier; if a woman can do the job, let her. If she can't, give it to someone who can.
     
  4. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Pain...don't talk to me about pain....You can't even spell the word...sorry...am I ranting again....I spent 3 years in a forces rehab centre...the injuries and wounds were horrendous..the cold war was far from cold..then again it was at Falklands and Ireland times...But I can confirm Slips pain...Girls and blokes scream or flinch in equal manner to treatment and pain.

    As to M16...do you lot still carry that in the infantry then? We had the old SLR...females did have problems with it..but that is why they were given other weapons..mostly smg's...That would limit in my time their role as an infantryman. But surely today..we have sa80 you lot must have a lighter weapon than the M16....Surely that gets rid of the old the guns too heavy and I'll scratch me nails sarge rubbish that I never saw or heared of.

    One last point from me..on the killing and protection side..the morals and the can they do it etc...do you not have armed policewomen? Are they no good then...Only next time I'm over there..if I get a problem should I ask for a proper copper if a female turns up for a shootout? Can they not run? Kill? protect? Do the other policemen put their lives in danger protecting the poor dears? I think and hope not.
     
  5. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Haven't had any kidney stones my self.. But did get run over by a 4x4 earlier this year.. Day i woke up got out of the bed and went down to the Cafe to get a decent feed.. Not an easy task with a broken leg lol. Doctors were a little annoyed and my mum mumbled something about those damn bloody stubborn males in the family =) Any one can push them selves or be pushed to do what has to be done.

    As for weapons being carried, These days more weapons are being made of lighter stronger composite material, But in any case even the male counter parts need to due a fair bit of exercise to be bale to carry around the weapons and various gear.. Nothing that stops the females from doing the same training to carry the same gear.
     
  6. lost knight

    lost knight Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    12
    Late to the thread as usual, but I read the whole thing and maybe someone is still around; so here goes with my comments:

    First- Volga Boatman, like USMCPrice, I had a root canal without any type of pain killer. Jumping from a truck in '68 my helmet (not chin strapped) followed so hard my jaws slammed hard enough to crack a molar. By '69 I had to see a dentist (his first root canal), opened the tooth, then used little wire barbed 'tooth picks' to pull out the nerves. No pain killer so he "could be sure he got it all out". 3 appointments of this...then he pulled a fish hook into his hand, put in a temporary filling, and rotated out. I had it fixed when I left the service. I still remember those sessions over 40 years ago and do not recommend that anyone try it for fun.

    The M-16 is to heavy? Seriously? We started with the M-14 and generally liked it better (heavier but you felt it wouldn't snap with a bayonet). And then the week we ran with the M-60 (for field MG training). It was all heavy but I think a dedicated women could have done it all.

    As to the Russian women...glad we never had to fight them since they're a special breed (post 71). Being of Russian extraction, perhaps I'm special too?
    But if I remember correctly the Romanov's women guards were the last hold-outs at the Winter Palace in 1917. In WW2 many women were snipers and piliots. The "White Rose of Stalingrd" comes to mind as well as the "Night Witches" that flew obsolete planes on harassing runs at night. However, this was not really the norm. Most served near combat in roles like HQ radio, motor MP, anti aircraft crews. Only volunteers were taken foward (often against the wishes of the local officers), and not that many volunteered. Many officers took the opportunity to have a "field wife" and there were some problems with jealousy.


    USMCPrice is 100% correct with the combat thing. Basic training is just that... you learn how to shoot to some level of ability since you never know what might happen. You don't have to be airborne or Ranger to soon see differences. Infantry training was much more since you never knew what would happen, and when the computer gods sent me to work in a HQ of a transport unit...I wondered about them and it took them a while to start to treat me 'normal'. Still I would much rather fight with the infantrymen that some emergency unit of support troops.

    The female thing is a real issue. Sexual harassment is real and really hard to end. The US Navy lost alot of officers and piliots to the 'Tailhook Scandal', and now the USAF is having a rather bad bit of PR involving quite a few cadets. Cost must also be some type of factor also. There must be an accomadation cost (if not in the field, in HQ offices and billets) for seperate facilities ? I have read there is a chid care cost, and readiness cost with pregnant wives being unable to deploy due to circumstances beyond their control.


    USMCPrice is convincing with necessary strenght arguement and I think I agree with him for now. But this whole issue really came about for a reason, technological advancements. Where "Molly Pitcher" (US heroine at Momouth Courthouse against the evil legions of King George III) was exceptional being strong enough to service an artillery piece, it is not so physically demanding to fire a small RPG (and do more damage). As technology pushes foward and weapon systems become ever advanced, women will also advance in the military. I've read of future weapons that will be remote robots in the not so distant future. Maybe it's a little sad to see man go the way of the horse and saber?

    On the other hand, human intellegence seems to be even between adult men and women. That means that there is another Rommel, Patton, Pick your own favorite general, out there lost or perhaps waiting to be discovered. Hope we never need her. The only real question is how rapid the technological advance will be that will alter the faces of our troops.

    Oh, and if women and girls should be drafted along with men and boys if the draft is ever needed again. Odd question if the volunteer thing is removed.

    The Female of the Species is Deadlier than the Male! A final word from an obscure 1900 poet.
     
  7. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Interesting link....Not the videos of course....Cac will have a fit though. USMC...your lot look like giving them a try...the big if though...is still combat infantry and the pre requisite of fitting the role and not the role fitting the person...as it should be. But its not far from fruition in most armed services around the world...Cac...you'll have to move to Saudi Arabia mate.

    GrogNews: Women In Uniform
     
  8. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    REPLY PART A
    Yes Mr. Urgh sir. That's old news to me. I still subscribe to several Marine Corps publications and the Marine Corps portion of your article appeared back in Marine Corps Times back in April of this year. It also mentioned that the Marine Corps was attempting to find a "gender neutral" PT test so that males and females could be adequately evaluated against one another:

    "Additionally, new functional fitness tests are being developed to help Marine Corps leaders determine how women and men perform in, and cope with, various combat tasks. The goal is to establish “gender-neutral” physical fitness standards. Details are scant, but the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command is looking to purchase a variety of new equipment specifically for these tests, suggesting the tasks associated with them will closely mimic combat-essential duties such as operating and moving heavy weaponry, and carrying casualties from the battlefield.
    The Marine Corps defines gender-neutral physical standards as being identical for men and women, rather than weighted — or “gender-normed” — like those applied in the service’s annual Physical Fitness Test. During the PFT, women can earn a minimum or maximum score with fewer repetitions and a slower run times than their male counterparts.
    This suggests that women wanting to serve in ground combat units will be given the shot to do so only if they can keep pace with their male counterparts. Standards would likely evaluate Marines not as women and men, but simply as infantrymen, tank crewmen or artillerymen, for example."

    It still remains to be seen how this will work out. The Marine Corps has always maintained separate recruit training for males and females. They do the same training, same events, but in separate battalions. The reason behind this is that if you combine males and females, and you push your recruits to the point that you weed out the weak males, you also weed out almost all of the females. If you lower the physical demands to a point where you have acceptable attrition among the females you also accept many males that should have been weeded out. A lot of it is not just simply a physical measurement, pushing your personnel physically also places them under stress which reveals how they deal with stress. So if they are training together you can be pushing the majority of your females to close to their physical limit and most of your males will still be within their comfort zone, thus unstressed. Pushing a soldier or Marine to near their physical limits also reveals their mental toughness, will they quit or carry on despite the pain/discomfort? Will their mind beat them or will their mind push them past a perceived limit?

    Last year, 2011, the Marine Corps looked at changing scoring on the PFT to make the scoring more equitable between males and females.

    "Details of the plan are outlined in a June 17 decision paper developed by Training and Education Command, out of Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. Obtained by Marine Corps Times, it recommends that women be allowed to score up to 70 points for maintaining the existing flexed-arm hang up to 70 seconds. To score more on the 100-point upper-body strength scale, they’d need to do pull-ups.
    Completing one pull-up would be worth 75 points on a 100-point scale, with five points awarded for each additional pull-up, the document says. A perfect score would be obtained with six pull-ups.
    Male Marines must perform pull-ups on their version of the PFT, with three pull-ups required for a minimum 15-point score, and five points awarded for each additional repetition through 20 and a perfect 100-point score. The other two 100-point tests in the PFT — crunches and the three-mile run — would not be altered for men or women, under the proposal."

    It should also be noted that the portion I bolded was mentioned earlier and a 17-26 year old female is held to the same requirements as a 46 year old male.
    While on the surface this appears to be a good thing because males already feel that the "gender norming" is unfair, it actually just exacerbates the problem.
    You have a male and a female, same unit, same job. You are taking the PT test side by side. Your PT test is part of your cutting score that determines your chances for promotion to the next rank. The female does two pull ups and scores an 80 on this portion of the PFT, the male does two pullups and fails it. Does the male perceive this as fair?

    You have the same two Marines, the female that does 6 pull ups and scores a perfect 100. The male does twelve pull ups, twice as many, and scores a 60. Let's say both are lance corporals and are in the zone to be promoted to corporal. Let's say both are equally proficient in their job knowledge and performance. If the cutting score is such that only one will be promoted, the female would be promoted and the male would remain at his current rank. When the female now gives orders to the male and he knows she was awarded a higher score for lesser performance, you will have friction and probably a lack of respect.

    "They suggested giving women the option of flexed-arm hang or pull-ups, and allowing those who unsuccessfully attempt pull-ups time to recover and be tested on the flexed-arm hang."

    This is another area of potential perceived discrimination. Joe Snuffy male does two pull ups, fails and is placed in an intensive PT program to remedy his poor performance. Jane Snuffy attempts the pull ups, does zero, gets to rest, takes a second bite at the apple and does the bent armed hang deal and passes with no repercussions. Does that sound fair?

    The US Army went with Gender Integrated Basic Training (Co-Ed) back in 1994. It was a disaster. They have since gone back to single sex training in their basic training for personnel going to combat arms. Before I get jumped, here is an excerpt from an official US Army study listing some of the issues.

    ARMY GENDER-INTEGRATED BASIC TRAINING (GIBT) 1993-2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    In a slide presentation prepared for presentation to the Secretary of the Army on March 22,2002, the Army Training and Doctrine Command claimed that GIBT is “effective” in terms of social benefits. TRADOC also conceded that gender-integrated basic training (GIBT) is an “inefficient” format for basic instruction of recruits. (See Appendix A) Inefficiencies associated with GIBT, someof which were admitted but downplayed by TRADOC in March 2002, include the following:​

    •​
    Less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs

    Voluntary and involuntary misconduct, due to an emotionally volatile environment for which leaders and recruits are unprepared.

    Higher physical injury and sick call rates that detract from primary training objectives.

    Diversion from essential training time due to interpersonal distractions and the need for anextra week of costly “sensitivity training.”

    A perceived decline in the overall quality and discipline of GIBT; lack of confidence in the abilities of fellow soldiers; and the need to provide remedial instruction to compensate for military skills not learned in basic training.

    Re-defined or lowered standards, gender-normed scores, and elimination of physically demanding exercises so that women will succeed.

    Additional stress on instructors who must deal with different physical abilities and psychological needs of male and female recruits.

    Contrivances to reduce the risk of scandal, such as changing rooms, extra security equipment and personnel hours to monitor barracks activities, and “no talk, no touch” rules, which interfere with informal contacts between recruits and instructors.

    No evidence of objectively measured positive benefits from GIBT, and no evidence that restoration of separate gender training would have negative consequences for women or men. An admittedly “inefficient” method of basic training that produces little or no tangible benefits cannot be described as “effective” in military terms. This is especially so when findings of two major blue ribbon commissions on co-ed basic training have indicated otherwise. GIBT was implemented administratively in 1994. It is possible to restore superior gender separate basic training, which is both efficient and effective in military terms, in the same way. For the sake of military efficiency and the best interests of Army men and women, this should be done without further delay.
    * * * * * * *
    Prof. Charles Moskos, a respected military sociologist and member of the Congressional Commission, wrote in the panel’s Final Report:
    “I am particularly perturbed by the high physical injury rate of women trainees compared to men. Likewise, I am put off by the double-talk in training standards that often obscures physical strength differences between men and women. The extraordinarily high dropout rate of women in IET cannot be overlooked (nor should the fact that females are more than twice as likely to be non-deployable than are male service members) The bottom line must be what improves military readiness.” 6


    For anyone interested the entire paper is located here:http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/GIBTSP01.pdf
     
  9. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    I should just put em all together on an assault course and tell em to go...back course any failures and give em one more go at a later date including those injured. Fail is fail, pass is pass...no matter the gender. Failures rtu'd returned to unit over here or if in basic told bye bye...male or female.
     
  10. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    REPLY PART B
    I separated this part of the reply out because it is not directly related to the topic. The current focus on doing what is politically correct, without regards to what is in the best interests of the military, I believe will achieve what Congress and the enemies of the United States have tried to do for 236 years without success. That is destroy the United States Marine Corps.


    After WWII Congress, at the behest of the United States Army and newly formed United States Air Force, tried to do away with the Marine Corps. This was over shrinking defense budgets and wanting to retain their portion of the pie. Fortunately, the American public stopped it. Then their wisdom was proven when in 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. The US Army and Air Force were virtually pushed off the Korean peninsula, and were holed up in a small perimeter around Pusan. The Marine Corps was ordered to send a troops to help stabilize the situation. All they could send was a brigade built around the 5th Marine Regiment, because they had also been hit hard by the post-WWII draw down. They landed, took the offensive, and stopped the North Koreans, saving the perimeter.
    A British military observer watching the Brigade come ashore wrote this in his official report:
    “The situation is critical and Miryang may be lost. The enemy have driven a division-sized salient across the Naktong. More will cross the river tonight. If Miryang is lost Taegu becomes untenable and we will be faced with a withdrawl from Korea. I am heartened that the Marine brigade will move against the Naktong salient tomorrow. They are faced with impossible odds and I have no valid reason to substantiate it, but I have a feeling they will halt the enemy.
    I realize my expression of hope is unsound , but these Marines have the swagger, confidence and hardness that must have been in Stonewall Jackson’s Army of the Shenandoah. They remind me of the Coldstreams at Dunkerque. Upon this thin line of reasoning, I cling to the hope of victory.”

    The Marine Corps never has and never will be large enough to win a major war, they have been, and continue to win battles that have have a large impact on the success or failure of the larger war. Our enemies know that and have repeatedly tried to destroy Marine Corps units in order to hurt the overall morale of the larger war effort. The civilian population, our political leaders, and the other United States military forces, with the possible exception of the US Navy, do not understand what has consistently made the Marine Corps successful in combat. The US Army has actually done studies on it! US Army General William Thornson who commanded the Marine Brigade in WWI probably stated it best when he made the following statement: "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." It was his Marines that stood between the Germans and Paris during WWI. When the French were falling back and ordered the Marines, in writing to retreat. Captain Lloyd Williams of the 5th Marines famously replied, "Retreat? Hell, we just got here." In twenty six days of combat that followed, often times hand to hand, the Marines stopped the Germans and retook the woods. Captain Williams would die nine days later, gassed and eviscerated by shrapnel. One of our future Commandants, Clifton Cates showed the Marines attitude in one of his reports: "Lieutenant Cates sent a runner to the remnants of the Battalion Headquarters to report the status of his Company following his assault into the Wood, eventually to be renamed “The Wood of the Marine Brigade” – the absence of his runner of course, reduced the size of his own unit by one man until he could return. “I have only two men out of my company, and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire, and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left, and only a few on my right. I will hold.”
    ~ Signed ~ 1st Lt. Clifton B. Cates USMC 19 July 1918

    Twenty-Five years later another future Commandant, Lt. Colonel David Shoup would send a similar message as his Marines were engaged in another sanguine battle, Betio island in the Tarawa atoll. An island that was so heavily defended that the Japanese Commander, Admiral Keiji, had bragged that, "the U.S. couldn’t take Tarawa with a million men in 100 years." The 2nd Marine Division accomplished the task in 76 hours and the more I've read on the battle I am firmly convinced that no other unit in the world except probably the 1st Marine Division, had the necessary expertise, Esprit and fighting ability to have prevailed there. "Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning." Colonel David M. Shoup, USMC, Tarawa, 21 November 1943.
    Back to the subject of the enemy trying to destroy the Marine Corps or elements thereof. In Korea, the Koreans and Chinese understood that in order to destroy United Nations morale it would be necessary to destroy the Marines or an element of them. Prior to the Chosin Reservoir campaign, "General Song had devised a plan to attack and destroy the two leading regiments of the 1st Marine Division, the 7th and 5th. The remainder of X Corps could then be annihilated, one by one. General Song sent his plan to Mao for approval. In reply Mao said: "The American Marine First Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments. [You] should have one to two more divisions as a reserve force. The 26th Army should be stationed close to the front." From 27 November to 13 December, 1950, the Chinese committed 12 divisions to the task, the 1st Marine Division and Britain's 41st Commando (OohRah) fought their way our destroying eight of those divisions in the process.
    In Vietnam during 1967, the North Vietnamese decided they would destroy an American Marine battalion. They focused on destroying the 1st battalion 9th Marines, (who earned the nickname "The Walking Dead" during this period). They even ignored other American units when possible in order to accomplish their task. An NVA regiment did trap and virtually wipe out one company of 1/9 near Con Thien. The Marine Corps didn't pull back they sent in more Marines and attacked. The NVA committed more troops, the Marines committed more battalions, the fight lasted 13 days. The Marines eventually had four battalions involved and the NVA in excess of a division. The NVA eventually quit after being severely hurt. My dad fought there with 3rd Recon battalion. The Marine Corps is a very small community and it was interesting that my regimental Commander at Parris Island when I went through Boot Camp was a battalion commander (1/3) during this fight, Colonel Peter A. Wickwire.

    WICKWIRE, PETER A.
    Synopsis:
    The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to Peter A. Wickwire (0-51969), Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion, 3d Marines, 3d Marine Division (Rein.), FMF, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam on July 4, 1967. By his courage, aggressive fighting spirit and steadfast devotion to duty in the face of extreme personal danger, Lieutenant Colonel Wickwire upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.
    Home Town: Mountain Lakes, New Jersey

    It's also interesting that my Series Commander during this same period ended up Commanding Marine Forces in Iraq when my oldest son was there.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    These pictures are from that fight when the Marines were recovering their dead. I was just a kid when I saw this (the second picture) and the day I saw it I knew my dad was dead because the boots on the dead Marines looked just like his. My mother couldn't console me or convince me otherwise. Turns out years later I mentioned this to my dad and he said he remembers that day and there were two tanks there and he was standing by the second tank off to the right with his RTO. Sci-FY channel stuff, eerie.
    I digress. Months later General Giap, the architect of Dien Bien Phu, decided he would repeat his victory over the French Foreign Legion, with a similar effort at Khe Sahn. Difference was he was facing Marines. He laid siege to them and tried to wipe out the Marine outposts for 77 days. In the end he quit.
    Most recently in Sangin Afghanistan, an area many thought unwinable. A third of all British casualties in Afghanistan had occurred there. A company of Marines had previously been sent to aid in the British pacification, but unsuccessfully. In July 2010 a Marine battalion, 3/7, relieved the British, in order to hold the place until the changeover could take place. Two months later they were relieved by a second Marine battalion, 3/5. 3/7 went home and 3/5 went to work. Despite statements that it couldn't be done, by both the British and the previous Marine battalion, 3/5 took the offensive and in four months, despite heavy casualties, they broke the back of the insurgency. Now, Sangin is relatively peaceful and the fighting has moved north into the Kajaki area. From the Los Angeles Times, January 2011:
    "When the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, deployed to the Sangin district of Afghanistan's Helmand province in late September, the British soldiers who had preceded them warned the Americans that the Taliban would be waiting nearly everywhere for a chance to kill them. But the Marines, ordered to be more aggressive than the British had been, quickly learned that the Taliban wasn't simply waiting.In Sangin, the Taliban was coming after them.
    In four years there, the British had lost more than 100 soldiers, about a third of all their nation's losses in the war.
    In four months, 24 Marines with the Camp Pendleton-based Three-Five have been killed.
    More than 140 others have been wounded, some of them catastrophically, losing limbs and the futures they had imagined for themselves.
    The Marines' families have been left devastated, or dreading the knock on the door.
    "We are a brokenhearted but proud family," Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly said. He spoke not only of the battalion: His son 1st Lt. Robert Kelly was killed leading a patrol in Sangin.
    The Three-Five had drawn a daunting task: Push into areas where the British had not gone, areas where Taliban dominance was uncontested, areas where the opium poppy crop whose profits help fuel the insurgency is grown, areas where bomb makers lash together explosives to kill and terrorize in Sangin and neighboring Kandahar province."
    As in so many battles in their history the Marines of 3/5 embraced their enemies in a death struggle, determined that they would be locked together until one side or the other, quit or was completely eliminated. As in so many previous struggles the public and leaders despaired, but never the Marines. It would be a fight to the finish and as long as one Marine remained, the fight would continue. In the end the Taliban quit and fled north with many of the local tribes agreeing to change sides and join the fight against the Taliban rather than be destroyed.

    I have been long winded enough, but let me make one further point. Since the War on Terror started, the Marine Corps has never lacked young warriors seeking a challenge. After the initial surge of patriotism post-9/11 the US Army struggled to meet it's recruitment goals. They had to raise the enlistment age several times, had to lower quality standards, offer ever higher enlistment bonuses, and still more often than not fell short on their numbers. The Marine Corps never did, during the worst part of the war they had waiting times for new recruits. The hardest MOS to get into was the '03 infantry MOS, with waiting times of up to a year. If you wanted to be a Marine more often than not you had to settle for a support job. Nice problem to have when you're involved in a war and are an all volunteer force. This is all now likely to change because our leaders wish to make the Marine Corps more PC by lowering it's standards to be more all inclusive. As you can probably tell, I love my Marine Corps and will until the day I die, but maybe it's time for them to go away. To disappear like the Spartans of ancient Greece. I blame our current PC, political leadership that places sociological concerns above combat effectiveness. I blame our first non-infantry Commandant, General Amos, who should never allow the Marine Corps combat effectiveness to be compromised by lowering its standards for any reason. To do so is to betray all the Marines that died for the ideal that is the United States Marine Corps, at Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Pusan, Seoul, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sahn, Fallujah and Sangin, or among the thousands of smaller battles Marines have died in. Robert Sherrod a correspondent that landed with the Marines at Tarawa said it best; "The Marines fought almost solely on esprit decorps, I was certain. It was inconceivable to most Marines that they should let another Marine down, or that they could be responsible for dimming the bright reputation of their Corps. The Marines simply assumed that they were the world's best fighting men."
    Robert Sherrod,
    1943, regarding the battle at Tarawa
     
  11. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Usmc..There is no need for any politial correctness...If any one cannot meet the stringent test of infantry and in the case of elite infnatries then they should not be allowed in the club. Its selection that should be based on the criterea already set down. Thats not pc. I'd be more worried in the dilution of the stringent tests and physical needs of both our armed forces in general terms as well as elite or basic infantry terms. There in lies the biggest danger. The dilution of physical and educational standards that have been necessary over the years since the eightees and the change in the ability and adapdibility of our generations. The British MOD state the malaise was the result of educational policies both relating to mental and physical since 1984 and tie it into the direct changes in the system in the UK of that year and leading onto today. They actually gave a date years ago and one I believe to be astutely correct. The dilution is not just on the female pc brigade side vis a vis good enough to be infantry etc...but rather...the general recruit...good enough to do the job?
    Old soldiers will always say there has been too many changes...but there has. Thats not maligning todays mobs in general, although I am an stick to my guns here..But the war fighting needs have changed and technology has thankfullly allowed that to be processed into the militaries of our nations. No one can tell me there is no change...I only have to see on parade those that wear the red beret today and ask...if its right for the many to wear it without the testing and gruelling tasks that had to be passed before. quite a lot of our paras have never even made a jump and are wearing wings. Support troops wear the beret. No one and I expect them to shout loud...can tell me different. PC is one thing. Dilution of the general requirements to meet males as well is it seems acceptable anyway.
     
  12. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Don't think for one minute I'm maligning American lifestyle of forces...I can just as easily pluck out numerous studies on our side of the pond relating to our own. But we are latterly speaking of US forces here as most commentators are American on here. But I see no difference in UK or USA on this matter. We have ignored the elephant in the room for years. We still manage to get through though. We carry on ingnoring and making excuses. But pc and its inevitable end result is not the cause of the problem it is a by product. All are affected not just females.

    "What we were finding was that the soldiers we're getting in today's Army are not in as good shape as they used to be," said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who oversees basic training for the Army, told the Times.


    The new fitness regimen was rolled out this year at the Army's five basic training posts, which collectively handle about 145,000 recruits a year, according to the paper.


    The Army has long rejected potential recruits who are overweight. But the number of potential recruits deemed too fat to fight has been growing in recent years, the result of America's obesity epidemic, says the Times.


    Between 1995 and 2008, the proportion of potential recruits who failed their physicals each year because they were overweight rose nearly 70 percent, according to a recent report issued by a blue-ribbon panel of retired generals and admirals.


    The report found that 27 percent of young adults between the ages of 17 and 24 were too fat for military service, according to Scripps News.

    Even those the Army deems slim enough to serve tend to be weaker and to have less stamina than recruits of previous generations - the result of years spent indulging in junk food and video games, according to Army officials who spoke with the Times.

    "Kids are just not able to do push-ups," Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon's director of accessions, told the Army Times last year. "And they can't do pull-ups. And they can't run."

    This is from 2010. The changes though go far back in time and although we have learned to live with them lets not ignore the elephant in the room as it pertains to all.

    "What we were finding was that the soldiers we're getting in today's Army are not in as good shape as they used to be," said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who oversees basic training for the Army, told the Times.


    The new fitness regimen was rolled out this year at the Army's five basic training posts, which collectively handle about 145,000 recruits a year, according to the paper.


    The Army has long rejected potential recruits who are overweight. But the number of potential recruits deemed too fat to fight has been growing in recent years, the result of America's obesity epidemic, says the Times.


    Between 1995 and 2008, the proportion of potential recruits who failed their physicals each year because they were overweight rose nearly 70 percent, according to a recent report issued by a blue-ribbon panel of retired generals and admirals.


    The report found that 27 percent of young adults between the ages of 17 and 24 were too fat for military service, according to Scripps News.

    Even those the Army deems slim enough to serve tend to be weaker and to have less stamina than recruits of previous generations - the result of years spent indulging in junk food and video games, according to Army officials who spoke with the Times.

    "Kids are just not able to do push-ups," Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon's director of accessions, told the Army Times last year. "And they can't do pull-ups. And they can't run."

    Now I can take all the insults given, but it won't change a damn thing.
     
  13. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    urgh seems as though you are mentioning the world military and not just US of A. back to topic at hand maybe those of us need to contact the IDF first hand, will tell you if you want a bunch of females giving you an A** kicking party go ahead and try your luck. Understandably the country for both boys/girls has had early military indoctrination as it is expected of each youth no matter the sex.
     
  14. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    I have to disagree Urgh. Not with the fact that the general population is less fit, but that standards have to be lowered bacause of this. The Army whines and cries about the problem, but doesn't do anything about it except to lower their standards to minimize attrition. The way the Marine Corps handles it is that recruits that are found to be mentally and morally qualified are placed in a poolee program for up to a year and are taught proper nutrition, are required to PT with their recruiters three times a week, and must pass the initial PFT prior to shipping to recruit training. That way the recruits are ready to train when they arrive, and those that really don't want it are weeded out prior to the government spending large amounts of money on them. The Marine Corps actually increased its physical requirements with the new Combat Fitness test that Marines must now train for. Much has been mentioned about technology somehow lessening the physical demands on the soldier, but todays infantry man humps more weight than his predecessors due increased body armor, increased communications equipment, imaging devices, combat optics, the batteries needed to power them and such. I probably appears that I am beating up on the Army, but I don't want anyone to mistake it for beating up on individual soldiers. I did a hitch in the Army after I left the Marine Corps and served with hundreds of soldiers that would have made good to outstanding Marines. Very dedicated, courageous, physically fit, highly trained, proficient soldiers. It's the Army as an institution that is broken. Just as the Army has large numbers of outstanding individuals, they also have large numbers of soldiers that shouldn't be serving. The Marine Corps has them also, just in smaller percentages, because they weed more out.

    This is not a new problem however. Everyone knows that President Kennedy established the President's Council on Physical Fitness. It's origins however go back to 1956 when a study decrying the lack of physical fitness among America's youth alarmed President Eisenhower. One of the greatest concerns was what effect this lack of fitness would have upon the US military in the event of war. Eisenhower formed the President's Council on Youth Fitness to address the problem and Kennedy renamed it and continued it.
     
  15. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Several things need to be pointed out here.
    1.) Israel has severe manpower issues, due their population size, that requires the service of women.
    2.) At present females make up only 3% of Israel's combat soldiers, and what we are discussing here is combat soldiers not women in the military in general. Something I have absolutely no problem with.
    3.) Prior to 2000, women were prohibited from serving in the IDF in a direct combat role.
    4.) The first female IDF soldier killed in action since 1948, was killed in 2006. Sgt.-Maj. (res.) Keren Tendler an Airborne Helicopter Engineer. Everyone throws the Israelis up as an example of women serving, but they obviously haven't been engaged in frontline combat in any numbers or they are extremely lucky.
    5.) IMO, the Israelis suffer from a greatly overstated reputation based upon my personal observations while serving alongside of them two times (once as a Marine and once as part of an Army Special Forces team). They look so good because most of the Arabs they have faced are so bad. Off the top of my head I would rate the Marine Corps, a number of US Army units, the South Koreans and the Australians as better soldiers, among the military personnel from different nations I have served with.
     
  16. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,503
    Likes Received:
    3,037
    Again well said sir...i too think this needs pointing out...Mossad is overrated too.
     
  17. Victor Gomez

    Victor Gomez Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    115
    Just my observations.....I am not specialist in what this topic discusses, but for me there are some things already settled in my mind......while we discuss the ladie's readiness, potentials in combat.......I have seen the sacrifices many of the women have made in their service whether or not they were a combat troop designate(all have seen some of this in the news).....they have suffered death, mistreatment by comrades, and grievous loss of limbs in service to our country and I have the highest respect for those sacrifices made, perhaps pioneering their gender's service for the rest of us in their careers in the military. When we spend so much time discussing and deciding the merits, wiseness, and potential of their capabilities they have been at work giving sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. I have long taught that anyone can do anything they dream of doing regardless of race or gender.....this is a constitutional issue at times, a religious issue at other times, a patriotic issue as well but in the long run we are going to have to accept and respect and give what is due. What is due is recognition that they are performing as asked, giving their lives, or self sacrifice on our behalf and I have gratitude for their services. Looking at their report cards for days gone by or whatever measurement we choose to try to apply.......for me it is a "MOOT" point.
     
  18. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    mc....Your confirming what I'm saying mate. It seems though your spending a lot of time on people who if they cannot pass strict recruiting tests by 2 attempts shouldn't be there in the first place. We do same here though. We actually have pre schools before they recruits even see the real thing. As for more kit....Over here its been proved beyond a doubt that the yomping and the tabbing with the kit our elite carried across the Falklands cannot be done today by their replacements. The MOD here have done their homework on that. We now apparantly concentrate on less sport type fitness and more physical fitness...which your own DOD have expressed a keen interest in. Either way..I still hold..and not just for the elites and not even the infantry..but all branches of services...You join up...you do basic...forget the pre work, thats up to the recruit...and if you fail..you are backclassed...even with injury...if you fail twice...pack your bag and the gate is over there...Fit to fight. All branches...If not...sling yer hook.
     
  19. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    1.) Israel has severe manpower issues, due their population size, that requires the service of women.

    At the risk of going off topic...if the religious zealotry were made to join, perhaps their problem would dissapear. Apparantly there were demos this weekend by thousands of Isreali's vets included demanding an end to the the unfair practice of not taking the religious guys and gals into the forces. There are a lot of angry vets out there.
     
  20. Victor Gomez

    Victor Gomez Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    115
    Israel may have population issues, but I know, from some friends, that they maintain a state of readiness to go to Israel should the need arise as they regularly live in the U.S. but plan to serve if and when needed for Israel, so there is certainly a significant reserve of people located elsewhere that will take an interest for Israel. I do not know the numbers however, of what is in reserve, for Israel, around the world, but suspect it may be tremendous. Someone who knows may address this to inform me more completely.
     

Share This Page