Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

Pentagon To Begin Training Women For Combat Roles By 2015

Recommended Posts

link

Women may be able to start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later under plans set to be announced by the Pentagon that would slowly bring women into thousands of combat jobs, including those in elite special operations forces.

Details of the plans were obtained by The Associated Press. They call for requiring women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

The move, expected to be announced Tuesday, follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.

While the sexual assault problem is more complicated than that, he said, the disparity has created a psychology that lends itself to disrespect for women.

Under the schedules military leaders delivered to Hagel, the Army will develop standards by July 2015 to allow women to train and potentially serve as Rangers, and qualified women could begin training as Navy SEALS by March 2016 if senior leaders agree. Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.

The Navy intends to open up its Riverine force and begin training women next month, with the goal of assigning women to the units by October. While not part of the special operations forces, the coastal Riverine squadrons do close combat and security operations in small boats. The Navy plans to have studies finished by July 2014 on allowing women to serve as SEALs, and has set October 2015 as the date when women could begin Navy boot camp with the expressed intention of becoming SEALs eventually.

U.S. Special Operations Command is coordinating the matter of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals leave the door open for continued exclusion of women from some jobs, if research and testing find that women could not be successful in sufficient numbers, but the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.

Army officials plan to complete gender-neutral standards for the Ranger course by July 2015. Army Rangers are one of the service's special operations units, but many soldiers who go through Ranger training and wear the coveted tab on their shoulders never actually serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. To be considered a true Ranger, soldiers must serve in the regiment.

In January, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order that wiped away generations of limits on where and how women could fight for their country. At the time, they asked the services to develop plans to set the change in motion.

The decision reflects a reality driven home by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battle lines were blurred and women were propelled into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached, but not formally assigned, to battalions. So, even though a woman could not serve officially as a battalion infantryman going out on patrol, she could fly a helicopter supporting the unit or be part of a team supplying medical aid if troops were injured.

Of the more than 6,700 U.S. service members who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 150 have been women.

The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

Under a 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

Last year the military opened up about 14,500 combat positions to women, most of them in the Army, by allowing them to serve in many jobs at the battalion level. The January order lifted the last barrier to women serving in combat, but allows the services to argue to keep some jobs closed.

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units that are often close to the battlefront. Similar jobs in the Marine Corps are also closed.

Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.

Women make up about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active U.S. military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or neighboring nations in support of the wars.

I think there would be a massive Jihad called all across the Middle east against America if Muslim men were getting shot up in action by Yank women.

Support roles yes. Combat roles....definitely not.

Women are not as strong as men, that is undeniable.

Miss White cannot sling Mr Brown over her shoulder and run out of a firefight, gun blazing.

Men will over-react to women team-mates who become casualties, etc...

I don't want to say it really...for the flaming... but once a month a woman can become an emotional mess, and that can hardly be of tactical advantage to your team.

Bad planning on part of America...or just propaganda to inflame their Islamic foes.

The US Navy tried an all female ship once. I recall it's several month long mission lasted 4 days before it sailed back into port; cancelled by a massive fight come mutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why it was that there appeared to be such a high incidence of sexual assault by 'men of honor' towards their co workers, even outside 'operations'.

It also astonished me that these same people are given guns and sent abroad under a get out of jail free umbrella and expected to act in a way that their folk back home would be proud of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards physical strength, I don't see why there should be a problem, given that both men and women will have to meet the same standards. Also, in the scenario you paint, it would also be advantageous if the soldiers were light and easier to carry. This would indicate that maximum weight as well as minimum strength criteria should be applied to all soldiers.

Also, I find that the actions of both men and women can sometimes be influenced by emotion. Again, standard selection criteria should be applied to weed out those who are not emotionally suited to particular roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to say it really...for the flaming... but once a month a woman can become an emotional mess, and that can hardly be of tactical advantage to your team.

I dunno. Women's cycles synchronise when they live together. Send all these women out at the "correct" time each month and they'll make mincemeat of any opposition! Give them chocolate at the end of each successful mission. War won. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all this to reduce sexual assault?

isnt that a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Women's cycles synchronise when they live together. Send all these women out at the "correct" time each month and they'll make mincemeat of any opposition! Give them chocolate at the end of each successful mission. War won. :ph34r:

The synchronisation thing is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards physical strength, I don't see why there should be a problem, given that both men and women will have to meet the same standards. Also, in the scenario you paint, it would also be advantageous if the soldiers were light and easier to carry. This would indicate that maximum weight as well as minimum strength criteria should be applied to all soldiers.

Also, I find that the actions of both men and women can sometimes be influenced by emotion. Again, standard selection criteria should be applied to weed out those who are not emotionally suited to particular roles.

You've not served so you know nothing about how the rank and file military deportment works.

A standard army rucksack and provision is in the region of 30 kg, plus 7-10 kg for weapon and ammo, and probably the same for kit, depending on mission.

Women cannot perform male roles in combat on equal footing, and having them in front line combat roles is a massive liability.

Women cannot run as fast, cannot carry the same weights for as long, and are 40% weaker in upper body strength, all a huge requirement for a soldier.

Men are noticeably more aggressive when in all male environments.

Men will over-react on seeing a female casualty.

Rape amongst combatants and opposing civilians is a common event. Care to watch your squad mate get it? No.

The enemy will not respect your troops gender.

Therefore, it is a bad idea... or propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've not served so you know nothing about how the rank and file military deportment works.

A standard army rucksack and provision is in the region of 30 kg, plus 7-10 kg for weapon and ammo, and probably the same for kit, depending on mission.

Women cannot perform male roles in combat on equal footing, and having them in front line combat roles is a massive liability.

Women cannot run as fast, cannot carry the same weights for as long, and are 40% weaker in upper body strength, all a huge requirement for a soldier.

Men are noticeably more aggressive when in all male environments.

Men will over-react on seeing a female casualty.

Rape amongst combatants and opposing civilians is a common event. Care to watch your squad mate get it? No.

The enemy will not respect your troops gender.

Therefore, it is a bad idea... or propaganda.

I understand that womens hips are more likely to break dropping with a load off a tall wall....but they can bear pain better than men.

Course, it was reputed that the Russian all Lady regiments on the Steppes in WW2 were the very ones a male soldier didnt want to surrender to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've not served so you know nothing about how the rank and file military deportment works.

A standard army rucksack and provision is in the region of 30 kg, plus 7-10 kg for weapon and ammo, and probably the same for kit, depending on mission.

Women cannot perform male roles in combat on equal footing, and having them in front line combat roles is a massive liability.

Women cannot run as fast, cannot carry the same weights for as long, and are 40% weaker in upper body strength, all a huge requirement for a soldier.

Men are noticeably more aggressive when in all male environments.

Men will over-react on seeing a female casualty.

Rape amongst combatants and opposing civilians is a common event. Care to watch your squad mate get it? No.

The enemy will not respect your troops gender.

Therefore, it is a bad idea... or propaganda.

No, I've not served, but I presume that many of those involved in making the decision have done so.

Anyway, I don't have to have served in order to point out the logic glitches in your arguments. On average, women are indeed not as strong as men; however, some women are stronger than some men, and if they are capable of meeting the same criteria applied to male soldiers, then strength is not an issue.

As for rape, well, it can't be worse than, say, having your balls crushed. Both are torture and both should be considered in a similar light. The possibility of being captured and tortured by the enemy is surely something to take into account when you sign up.

Edit: Regarding aggressiveness (assuming that's true) - in many circumstances it that may be a good thing if aggression (an emotion) takes a back seat to reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American woman in combat.

Like, I was, like, talikng to the commander and he was, like, my boots weren't polished but, like, I'm TOTALLY OCD about polishing, so he TOTALLY has a problem with me and I was, like, 'Hey, backoff with your passive aggressive shit' and he was, like, TOTALLY pissed at me but I like, was, totally pre-menstrual so he, like, didn't take it further. But, like, Jennifer was TOTALLY acting out in front of him and he was, like, okay, whatever. Like, he totally wants to ****** her but, like, they should be treating us consistently. Like, I'm kinda, like, really gonna take it out on some Talibans later, like, for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Course, it was reputed that the Russian all Lady regiments on the Steppes in WW2 were the very ones a male soldier didnt want to surrender to.

Some of the best snipers in WWII (most kills) were women. Russian women, naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The enemy will not respect your troops gender.

Why should they? As far as I would be concerned if it's carrying a gun, wearing the enemy uniform I shoot it. Without hesitation. I don't care what sex it is or whether it is transgender etc etc. The same goes for child soldiers as well. If they have a gun and fight for the enemy you shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the Swedish army (so no risk of death or anything) and served with men and women.

It worked pretty OK and that - and they tended to carry the same amount of kit as us but we weren't exactly a combat platoon - we were medics and didn't have to carry so much kit.

But yeah, could they have dragged one of the men if we were injured or lifted us over their shoulders? No, would be the answer. But then again they weren't subjected to those sort of demands. I would have hoped a ranger trained US solider whatever would have to pass such physical tests.

If women want to get shot up - let em do it. Why anyone would voluntarily go into the army etc is beyond me but some people obviously love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards

I often got myself in trouble when I served for noting the inequity within ranks, especially towards the sexes, but I was navy.

Women got out of tons of heavy labour.

Just looked at the press up standard, and if i'm reading it right a man in my age range needs to be able to do 24 in 2 minutes, while a woman needs to do 6.

It's ********. Either you don't need to meet the higher standard - in which case imposing it on the men is unfair. Or, you do need that level of fitness, in which case the womens standard is too low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked at the press up standard, and if i'm reading it right a man in my age range needs to be able to do 24 in 2 minutes, while a woman needs to do 6.

It's ********. Either you don't need to meet the higher standard - in which case imposing it on the men is unfair. Or, you do need that level of fitness, in which case the womens standard is too low.

Nope, it's ******** as you put it.

It was a bee in my bonnet during my service. 'Split ar$es' got out of lots of work while the swinging dicks got the shaft...so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not think a captured female soldier will face much more cruelty if captured than a male would? I'm talking things like gang rape. I wouldn't want my daughter joining the infantry.

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more of that kind of thing with captured male soldiers - or maybe there has been but no-one is talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not think a captured female soldier will face much more cruelty if captured than a male would? I'm talking things like gang rape.

They do this to men as well, you know. Have done throughout history. War's a nasty business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more of that kind of thing with captured male soldiers - or maybe there has been but no-one is talking about it.

Talk with UK pongos who went to the Falklands....there was a lot of raping going on, by both sides, to men and women....however, it is not politically correct to say our lads would be up to such vile business, and you'd be hard pressed to find it written down anywhere 'official' due to the damning nature of this part of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked at the press up standard, and if i'm reading it right a man in my age range needs to be able to do 24 in 2 minutes, while a woman needs to do 6.

It's ********. Either you don't need to meet the higher standard - in which case imposing it on the men is unfair. Or, you do need that level of fitness, in which case the womens standard is too low.

Down the gym we have running machines that have US forces fitness programs. You can do the Air Force, Army or Marine Corps run.

The specs for the marine corps are here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test

I looked them up because after doing the run I wondered whether I would pass the other stuff.

TBH I think these limits are a bit of a joke. My guess is that the average marine is much fitter than the test limits. Either that or they just ride around on jeeps everywhere and don't run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk with UK pongos who went to the Falklands....there was a lot of raping going on, by both sides, to men and women....however, it is not politically correct to say our lads would be up to such vile business, and you'd be hard pressed to find it written down anywhere 'official' due to the damning nature of this part of war.

Lovely.

Did the Argentinians have female conscripts then, or were the nastier Paras(and doubtless other regiments) amusing themselves b*ggering young Argentine boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 246 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.