- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DoD Secretary opens all military jobs to women
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:25 pm to TheHumanTornado
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:25 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
That I'd rather a mentally stable and physically capable woman protecting our country than someone like yourself?
Well, the commandant of the Marine Corps disagrees with your assessment. Think about that for a second. Why would, after an exhaustive study, the Commandant decide that putting women in infantry roles not be a wise move?
Possibly because...
1)They were injured more often
2)They carried less
3)They were fatigued more often
Check, check, and check. But don't take my word for it.
Read it for yourself.
quote:
All-male squads and teams outperformed those that included women on 69 percent of the 134 ground combat tasks evaluated.
All-male teams were outperformed by mixed-gender teams on two tasks: accuracy in firing the 50-caliber machine gun in traditional rifleman units and the same skill in provisional units. Researchers did not know why gender-mixed teams did better on these skills, but said the advantage did not persist when the teams continued on to movement-under-load exercises.
All-male squads in every infantry job were faster than mixed-gender squads in each tactical movement evaluated. The differences between the teams were most pronounced in crew-served weapons teams. Those teams had to carry weapons and ammunition in addition to their individual combat loads.
Male-only rifleman squads were more accurate than gender-integrated counterparts on each individual weapons system, including the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle and the M203 grenade launcher.
Male Marines with no formal infantry training outperformed infantry-trained women on each weapons system, at levels ranging from 11 to 16 percentage points.
quote:
The average male Marine volunteer was 178 pounds with 20 percent body fat; the average female volunteer weighed 142 pounds with 24 percent body fat.
In anaerobic power and capacity, female Marines averaged 15 percent lower levels than their male counterparts. In anaerobic power performance, the top 25 percent of female performers and the bottom 25 percent of male performers overlapped.In aerobic capacity, female Marines demonstrated levels 10 percent lower on average than male Marines.
Over the course of the assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates totaled 40.5 percent for women, more than double the 18.8 percent rate for men.
In all, female Marines sustained 21 "time-loss" injuries which took them away from task force duties for a day or more. Nineteen of the women's injuries were lower extremity injuries and 16 percent took place during a task that required movement while carrying a load. Officials said they could not immediately provide the comparable injury rates for men but said lower extremity injuries were the most common among male Marines as well.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:28 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
How many women do you know that could complete a 20k hike with full ruck (around 45lbs) full flak (around 30lbs) and the weapon/weapon system?
Don't know if they still do this but when I went through OSUT back in the summer of 88, on our 20 mile road march one of my drill sgts filled his ruck up with sandbags and the other had his filled up with rocks.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Well, the commandant of the Marine Corps disagrees with your assessment. Think about that for a second. Why would, after an exhaustive study, the Commandant decide that putting women in infantry roles not be a wise move?
Possibly because...
1)They were injured more often
2)They carried less
3)They were fatigued more often
Check, check, and check. But don't take my word for it.
Read it for yourself.
I can personally vouch for this. BTW, the stench and hygiene factor of a menstrating female out in the field for a couple weeks without washing is one of the worst smells I have ever smelled in my entire fricking life. You can smell it several feet away. Awful.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:34 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Didn't you go to SOI with girls? Tell us some stories
Yeah, that was a hoot lol.
Ok, so we were the first company in the USMC to try and have enlisted female marines. Think it was around 15 of em. They had to live in their own squad bay. Which incidentally made the 31's do their dis/arse until around midnight every night in our squad bay which typically didn't happen until there were females there.
One of them got pregnant (dropped automatically)
One of them got engaged to another marine in the company (dropped automatically)
One of them hopped in a car full of NCO's from Lejeune and drove off during liberty one day, couldn't find her the entire day. (Made quite a few NCO's get NJP'd)
Due to that little stunt she pulled we no longer got to go off base for liberty. And we never got overnight liberty in the first place because of them.
Two of them got lost during the night land navigation course or something like that. Only to find that no, they hadn't gotten lost. They had just wandered off...alone...and went to sleep. The ENTIRE company was out looking for them for hours before they strolled up like nothing was wrong.
Oh and only one of them completed the 20k.
None of them dug an acceptable fighting hole, none of them qualified on table 2 or whatever it was we shot, and not a single one of them met the standards to graduate as an infantryman/woman/person or whatever the hell the grunts will be called now.
Yeah, frick having women in combat.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:36 pm to LewDawg
quote:
I remember that shite being way heavier
I never weighed it. Just guessing.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:38 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Two of them got lost during the night land navigation course or something like that. Only to find that no, they hadn't gotten lost. They had just wandered off...alone...and went to sleep. The ENTIRE company was out looking for them for hours before they strolled up like nothing was wrong.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:39 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
And there you have it
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:40 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
NYNolaguy1
Yeah, it was around this time of year in North Carolina so it was wet and cold. Just like gunny likes it.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:42 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
How many women do you know that could complete a 20k hike with full ruck (around 45lbs) full flak (around 30lbs) and the weapon/weapon system?
They all fall out or they have to literally hang on to the back of a guys pack and nearly be pulled or drop out. Guys dropped out too, but literally every female did during a 20 mile.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:44 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
GeauxxxTigers23
But you know what platoon bad nobody fall out of the 20k? fricking weapons. Woo! Steel rain steel pain baby! And whatever the nerds and 31's say.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:47 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
How many Walking Mattresses did yall have in weapons?
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:49 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Not a single one, they were all in 11 platoons.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 3:59 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
How many Walking Mattresses did yall have in weapons?
I was on ship one time and some Navy chick had to be literally flown off because so many marines were drilling her in various places on ship. Ugly, but looked hot after a few weeks on ship lol.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 4:12 pm to Rhino5
What about the drama?
Jealousy, hurt feelings, gossip, etc.
Jealousy, hurt feelings, gossip, etc.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 4:34 pm to Paige
The gossip is only sexual based. Any chick that wasn't in a relationship but hooked up was talked about immediately.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 9:01 pm to Rhino5
I can tell you first hand, although not combat, that as soon as it's time to make somethong uncomfotable happen the Vagina card would be wipped out by 98%. The other 2% wanted to be dudes. And if they really wanted things equal: Make shavjng your fricking head for boot camp like the guys mandatory and sam PT standards a male must meet per role.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:15 pm to Doosh606
quote:
M-60s don't magically get lighter because the person carrying it has a vagina.
Therein lies the real problem.
60mm mortar round - 4lbs
60mm mortar - 18lbs in handheld config (about 50lbs as complete system)
M4 rifle - 7lbs minimum
Basic load 5.56mm - 10lbs
Can of .50cal ammo (100 rounds) - 35lbs
Sustainment load approach march for 72hr patrol cycle - 75lbs, does not include weapon and ammo
Personal load for patrol / assault - minimum 50lbs, does not include weapon and ammo
M240 machine gun + 600 rounds 7.62mm - 70lbs, split between two people
100 rounds 7.62mm - 7lbs
ASIP radio with battery - 8lbs
Extra radio battery - 2lbs
Grenade - average about 1lb each
1 gallon water - 8lbs
Gutted MRE - 1lb
180lb male Soldier or Marine kitted up, on patrol - very often 300lbs, at least 280lbs
Soldier load goes up quickly when you have to cross load ammo, mortar rounds, extra batteries and so forth.
Personal load difference between man and woman, due to smaller size clothing, smaller body armor etc - no more than 10lbs.
Average female will carry about 8%-10% more, as a function of body weight, than a male. But the average female is 2/3 as strong as the average male, and if you boost them up due to training, you probably get closer to 75%, and body size is 80% of a male. So, women will carry higher percentage of body weight, with less absolute strength, and reduced surface area on bones, joints, feet, etc to distribute the load.
Based on the numbers you have to assume there will be drops in performance. There will be exceptions. There are women out there that can handle it all, mentally, and that may be the easiest part of this change. But, on the whole, it seems to me like we are setting up a bunch of women in the armed forces for a crap ton of ortho problems that may affect them on active duty and will definitely affect them when they become Veterans, and we all know how things have gone at the VA for timely care etc.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:25 pm to Scream4LSU
quote:
The recent female Ranger School graduates come to mind. There is passing Ranger School which has it's minimum requirements and there are the requirements to be in the Regiment which are far more higher. A very,very small percentage of tabbed Rangers make it to that level even though they passed the school. Without lowering the standards it is highly unlikely you see women in the Navy Seals, Special Forces etc. as the article states.
Lot of speculation that RI's were pressured to uh, shape the scoresheets and get them through training. To be honest, the part that makes the Army look most suspicious is the fact that the females were both from West Point. You know the Army was going to make sure West Pointers were the first females. That reason alone would be enough to convince some of them to rig things.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:28 pm to SippyCup
quote:
A little harsh don't you think? The dogs didn't have any control over the decision.
The service chiefs can resign though. Nothing quite says 'no confidence' like service chiefs resigning.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:30 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
And they were shitbags
That's beside the point. You asked if anyone had seen a fat senior officer or NCO in the Infantry. I've seen several over my time in.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News