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

I've mentioned before the Marine squad leader in Afghanistan during the height of fighting and in the worst region - Helmand District - said that as soon as his squad was out of sight of the CO's, he would tell his squad to shed all the dead weight they were ordered to carry.

I've also commented that prior to being in combat he was INTENSELY against women in combat roles. However, afterwards he saw no reason not to. Physical strength did not matter. I was courage, ability to act cohesively with the squad, intelligence and shooting skills. He didn't give a damn how many push ups or how much weight they could carry. He wanted fighters suitable for the combat - not pack mules and dunderheads with strong backs.

Seriously, only a fool measures combat troops as individuals by weight lifting ability.

 

Johnson said he didn't disagree with me so I actually did not lose the argument.
Nice try, though.
Keep trying.

 

Sure, maybe the US Army should just field a battalion of your super woman who killed "more enemy than all vets on this thread combined". They can deploy with Captain America and Spiderman.

 

It seems many want battalions of infantry or Marines shot up because it takes dead troops to make good war movies to pretend they are in.

If on mission, Captain American and Spiderman wouldn't stand a chance against her. No living organism does.

 

Interesting update:

A friend of mine is an XO for an infantry basic training company (known as OSUT). He said the company next to his has two female 11x candidates. However, he said their paperwork stated they were enlisted as 18X (special forces candidates). Will update when I know further.

 

the bullets that are fired from her weapon will not hurt you any less than those which come one used by a man:







the bombs dropped by these girls won't hurt you any less than those dropped by men:












if women want to be combat, then why the hell shouldn't they be allowed in it?



Don't want women in combat? DON'T START ANOTHER G0DD@MN WAR!

 

The topic of women in combat isn't about their accuracy firing a weapon system or piloting an air craft. It's about the combat load they can carry, their smaller bone structures, and the fact that their PT standards are far lower than males. IMO, if women want combat roles, they merely need to pass with the current combat standards and not the lower women's standards.

 

That wasn't a problem for women who served in South Vietnam's liberation from the American invasion or for those who served in partisan groups against the Nazis. Therefore, it is no problem today.

 

How much did the average combat load each woman carried in those instances weigh?

 

Once again you make a case for replacing male combat troops with mules. Can a male carry as much as a mule? No. Therefore, men are grossly inferior and should not be allowed to be in combat units because they are inferior to mules in how much they can carry in your perspective that the strength of a military is based upon how much weigh can be carried. Since mules can carry more and move much faster for a longer period of time then men, men should not be allowed in combat units.

The Marine we know who was a squad leader in the Helmand District at the height of fighting would have left you behind if you insisted on carrying all the crap the military bureaucrats said had to be carried. Unlike your perspective, his view was that missions were about killing the enemy, instead of being safely slow by carrying massive loads as an excuse to avoid combat engagement.

Maybe that is your point - that infantry should be so heavily weighed down they can not possible catch, flank or surround the enemy and therefore no one gets hurt. Rather, they are just like a moving company to bring supplies to set up temporary bases for those who actually are in combat. However, trucks and helicopters then are what is needed. Can a male infantryman carry as much weight as a Humvee, truck or helicopter? No. Therefore, male infantry men are so vastly inferior as to be virtually worthless. Besides, mules are much, much cheaper.

PROOF that mules are superior than male infantry is within Army specifications:

"U.S. Army specifications for pack mules state that 'American mules can carry up to 20 percent of their body weight (150 to 300 pounds) for 15 to 20 miles per day in mountains,'" Wickler says. "There are some anecdotal reports of 350 to 400 pounds and even an 1867 reference to 600 to 800 pounds for mules."Jun 25, 2008

 

If you can show me a mule that can execute a raid, seizure, and intelligence snatch...I'll give into your "point".

 

Can you identify a specific "raid, seizure, and intelligence snatch" in which the personnel were carrying 100+ pounds of gear when this was done - in modern history?

 

Pretty much every one we went on. It was about 85lbs of gear, not 100+. There's a difference between vehicle patrols and foot patrols. Foot patrols go where vehicles and mules can't go. Also, ever had to disembark from a vehicle being shot at vs. being able to take cover instantly when on foot?

When you and your Ranger Regiment stormed an urban zone, how easy was it to sort through your intelligence while sitting in your vehicle or on your mule?

The problem is, you don't understand what actually happens on deployments which is why you're making this incredibly strange "analogy".

 

whatever they carried, they won the war against the imperialists and that's the bottom line

 

I remember when the Marine Corps and Army tried to replace Marines and soldiers with Mules.

The M-274 "MULE" 1/2 tn. 4X4 utility vehicle and it could operate with only three wheels.





Even the Germans adopted the Mule and put a 20MM automatic cannon on the Mule back during the 80's during the Cold War.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/42cput/americas_technical_m274_mule_with_20mm_cannon/

 

A war which each soldier on both sides needed to carry significantly less material. How much did their IBA (bullet proof vests) weigh? How many food rations could they bring? How heavy was each person's radio equipment in those wars?

 

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

And:

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

And:

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment...

actual politically incorrect study because no war on the battlefield has ever been won with political correctness. -> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

 

Explain, exactly, any mission you were on where carrying 85 pounds rather than 60 pounds determined the outcome? Obviously at 85 pounds you are moving a tad slower. You keep asserting that weight carrying is the absolute critical matter in combat - that the troops for which each personnel that carries the most weight therefore wins. Thus, if the enemy troops were carrying 105 pounds, they would defeat your unit because you were only carrying 85 pounds. I keep asking you for any actual proof of that assertion - either in actual examples or actual statistics.

There are other factors I've mentioned. On average women are smaller meaning less food and water required - and inherently on top of that need to carry less water and less food pound for pound due to different metabolic rates. Accordingly, at least in terms of food and water women don't need to carry as much weight as men.

So, of the missions you were on, can you explain in real terms the entire 85 pounds of which every pound made the difference between living or dying, success or failure?

 

Curious how there are no comparisons between troops on the same standards based on race or age. Why is that? It couldn't be PCism, could it?

If you go back to the title of this thread and OP, what you cite is irrelevant as it compares all-male units to sex integrated units (though instead the study uses the PC-term of "gender integrated. It does not compare all-male units to all-female units, which is what I suggest.

 

Moving a bit slower with 85 over 60? Of course. Developing bone spurs and micro fractures faster? Of course. Women's smaller bone structures take massive hits because of it.

The facts stand that women have smaller bone structures resulting in a much more difficult time. Hence why they have LOWER standards.

Civilians have such a tough time grasping it.

Go to RASP next time a woman is there. See how well she does compared to men's standards.

 

Touche'!

Those come up for sale on Ebay sometimes. Bring top dollar.

 

So you are now specifically talking about Rangers, not infantry, correct?

Do you think male Rangers could pass as women for civilian infiltration, on-site spotter, intelligence gathering and assassination/kill of specific targets?

 

Men want women included inside their units so they can have sex at hand with the women. Women know it. Women get pregnant all the time in the military by their peers.

 

No, I'm not specifically talking about rangers. I used their training as an example because men and women have to progress EQUALLY much like the battlefield.

It's not just women with weaker bone structures. Many men fail OSUT for 11B, or 31B, and other combat, support, and armor MOSs because they too can't meet the male standards. They are either re-assigned a new MOS to attend AIT for or they are discharged for failing to meet the standards.

Deployment must mean everyone can make it equally. Not lower standards for women. That's ****ing stupid

 

Edit; I posted this earlier