Women in combat ?

[Guest Cazador]

Now that women are to be allowed in the combat MOS's including the Rangers, Seals and Recon. Being this is a ridiculous idea I guess we will need some new ridiculous unit designations. Any Ideas? 

[Spots]

Since we (The Marines) are devil dogs, I vote that MARSOC be renamed the Pink Poodles.

I am not a feminist. I believe women should have every right and freedom a man does. But they are made different, both emotionally and physically. What happens when your on a mission and its that time of the month? And I have yet to meet more than a couple of women who could hump my pack and full combat load when I was in and it not take an irreversible tole on their bodies if they could even pick up and suit up in my gear and still move.

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

[Jonnin]

My opinion is way off the norm but I will give it anyway.

 

I think *anyone* should be allowed to fight for their country and if they are not physically able to be a grunt then we find them a computer.   Even a kid can drive a drone with a little practice.  And you should not have to be able to haul a 800 pound backpack to be allowed to contribute in some way.  Since we are unwilling to bomb the enemy, we do need ground troops, but that is not the only job, we also need hackers, drone pilots, and so much more.

 

That said, I think we should change the age of the fighting person to be 30-50.   I may be in the minority but I feel that most 18-25 year olds are too reckless and do not truly understand their own mortality well enough to be sent off to die.   I respect our military but its a system that preys on youth, "trains" (brainwashes) them to obey orders without question and uses their lack of self preservation to produce cannon fodder.   Not a fan of that at all.  

 

As for hauling gear: half the world fights with an AK and a tiny amount of gear.  I think we ask our troops to carry to much junk around.  Handy stuff, some of it, but if some guy in a rag with an AK, a bottle bomb,  and a sammich in his pocket can fight off an army, we might be able to carry a little bit less crap. 

[DMark]

Interesting comments Jonnin.

 

Just one question.

 

How much Ground Combat time do you have?

[Spots]

My opinion is way off the norm but I will give it anyway.

I think *anyone* should be allowed to fight for their country and if they are not physically able to be a grunt then we find them a computer. Even a kid can drive a drone with a little practice. And you should not have to be able to haul a 800 pound backpack to be allowed to contribute in some way. Since we are unwilling to bomb the enemy, we do need ground troops, but that is not the only job, we also need hackers, drone pilots, and so much more.

That said, I think we should change the age of the fighting person to be 30-50. I may be in the minority but I feel that most 18-25 year olds are too reckless and do not truly understand their own mortality well enough to be sent off to die. I respect our military but its a system that preys on youth, "trains" (brainwashes) them to obey orders without question and uses their lack of self preservation to produce cannon fodder. Not a fan of that at all.

As for hauling gear: half the world fights with an AK and a tiny amount of gear. I think we ask our troops to carry to much junk around. Handy stuff, some of it, but if some guy in a rag with an AK, a bottle bomb, and a sammich in his pocket can fight off an army, we might be able to carry a little bit less crap.

Women are, and have been allowed in almost all roles of the military that wasn't direct action ground troops for years.

As far as age. Most young Marines I know and knew were more responsible than 75% of the population. We are a lot of things, cannon fodder is not one of them. Believe it or not I had self preservation skills as a young Marine. We just do what must be done to get our job done. And as your body ages it fatigues easier and becomes more prone to injury. Military is mostly a young mans game, for good reason. We follow orders without question because its whats needed to complete our mission.

I do agree with lighter gear. But body armor has saved countless lives. Ammo is a neccesity as is water. So there just isn't many placed to cut weight. Body armor could be lighter, but I dont know many Marines who carry anything thats not necessary. Already

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere
Edited June 18, 2013 by Spots

[wipfel]

 

That said, I think we should change the age of the fighting person to be 30-50.   I may be in the minority but I feel that most 18-25 year olds are too reckless and do not truly understand their own mortality well enough to be sent off to die.   I respect our military but its a system that preys on youth, "trains" (brainwashes) them to obey orders without question and uses their lack of self preservation to produce cannon fodder.   Not a fan of that at all. 

 

 

Interesting idea, but I'm reminded of Stephen Ambrose's book D-Day.  A soldier he interviewed said the fact they were green was an asset, and that he, the soldier, didn't think he could have done the things necessary later in the war when he was a veteran and realized he wasn't bulletproof.  I would say being young is similar, and the older we get the more cautious we are.  

 

The military has to brainwash these young men and women to some degree, I think.  They are typically good people being asked to do and endure terrible things.  IMO, it's a shield and a justification for the risks they take and the trauma they endure.

Edited June 18, 2013 by wipfel

[mikegideon]

 Body armor could be lighter, but I dont know many Marines who carry anything thats not necessary. Already

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

 

I'm guessing it can't be much lighter and still stop rifle bullets, without using more exotic materials.

[mk19]

I believe in the equality of the sexes. Throughout history women have fought alongside men or by themselves, Amazons, and Viking Shield maidens are more familiar with the western culture. When I was in there were female Marines who used to go to the field with us, and most performed their duties well. The reason we did not have females in the combat MOS's had something to do with hygiene which females needed in order to avoid certain illness which I don't remember the name of. I say if females want to and are qualified for combat MOS's, let them. However one thing pops to mind, and that is if they get captured that is a huge PR win for the enemy. 

30-50 is old for main combat troops, as many have said, the younger the better, I used to say, the Marines need young, willing, and reckless people, they older one gets hopefully the smarter they get, and smart people are not so willing to just charge the hill. 

As for carrying the gear, the American service member is lucky to have all this gear, let the rest of the world fight naked, I want my body armor and what not when I go outside the wire. I'd rather be tired and safe that going home in a box. 

[tnhawk]

I've been in "combat" with a few women, sometimes I won, sometimes they won. :rofl:

[Joseg]

Fellas, grab 5 males dogs and throw in one female in heat and tell me what happens? You already know, same thing will happen. This is the Guberments solution for Sexual Assaults. Throw them in closer proximity to the meat eaters and hope they can cut it. 

 

Some can do it, some will get pregnant and joe will pay for it, some will yell rape. The Military is not a social experiment and they sure in hell ain't Starship Troopers. Type As need to left alone and let them do what they do and that's execute National Foreign Policy for the last 3-500 meters. Standards will come down and moral amongst the ranks will fall, especially amongst the Type As.. 

[RichardR]

Fellas, grab 5 males dogs and throw in one female in heat and tell me what happens? You already know, same thing will happen. This is the Guberments solution for Sexual Assaults. Throw them in closer proximity to the meat eaters and hope they can cut it.

Some can do it, some will get pregnant and joe will pay for it, some will yell rape. The Military is not a social experiment and they sure in hell ain't Starship Troopers. Type As need to left alone and let them do what they do and that's execute National Foreign Policy for the last 3-500 meters. Standards will come down and moral amongst the ranks will fall, especially amongst the Type As..

Agreed, nothing good will come of this (and I honestly believe that is the entire reason why "the left" is doing it).

[peejman]

That said, I think we should change the age of the fighting person to be 30-50.   I may be in the minority but I feel that most 18-25 year olds are too reckless and do not truly understand their own mortality well enough to be sent off to die.   I respect our military but its a system that preys on youth, "trains" (brainwashes) them to obey orders without question and uses their lack of self preservation to produce cannon fodder.   Not a fan of that at all. 

 

 

Which is the whole reason why the military wants kids.  They don't know any better so they'll do what their told, even if it means dying.  An army of individuals doesn't work. 

 

I think that's one of the biggest reason why the "greatest generation" fought so well.  They simply didn't know any better.  They were young, idealistic, had a cause to fight for, and for the most part, were completely uniformed as to what they were getting themselves into.  The modern army is infinitely better informed and I think that works against them. 

[Cherokee Slim]

I was all for women in combat until The Navy told my rising freshman granddaughter they would pay for her schooling if she would work seriously towards flying helicopters for them.  Now I'm leaning back toward the barefoot, pregnant & in the kitchen idea.  Married.  To a man.

Cherokee Slim

[Romad7]

My opinion is way off the norm but I will give it anyway.

 

I think *anyone* should be allowed to fight for their country and if they are not physically able to be a grunt then we find them a computer.   Even a kid can drive a drone with a little practice.  And you should not have to be able to haul a 800 pound backpack to be allowed to contribute in some way.  Since we are unwilling to bomb the enemy, we do need ground troops, but that is not the only job, we also need hackers, drone pilots, and so much more.

 

That said, I think we should change the age of the fighting person to be 30-50.   I may be in the minority but I feel that most 18-25 year olds are too reckless and do not truly understand their own mortality well enough to be sent off to die.   I respect our military but its a system that preys on youth, "trains" (brainwashes) them to obey orders without question and uses their lack of self preservation to produce cannon fodder.   Not a fan of that at all.  

 

As for hauling gear: half the world fights with an AK and a tiny amount of gear.  I think we ask our troops to carry to much junk around.  Handy stuff, some of it, but if some guy in a rag with an AK, a bottle bomb,  and a sammich in his pocket can fight off an army, we might be able to carry a little bit less crap. 

 

I have spent my entire adult life (17-34) so far in the military and I can tell you, respectfully, you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

Your comment about 18-25 year olds not understanding that their mortality is highly disrespectful to the ones who put themselves in danger every day, they know the cost of war and are fully willing to pay it with their lives if need be.  Many of them have lost friends and have have aged years in days from the stress and lessons of combat.  Yet they still continue on.

 

None of our troops are trained to be cannon fodder and trust me when I say that they ask a lot of questions, I know this from experience as a supervisor.  They are not mindless even after years of training.  They are trained to follow orders because hesitation and debate in combat can get people killed but they are not just robots.

 

About UAV pilots, there is much more to operating unmanned platforms than just fiddling with an XBox controller.  Also, women have been flying them since the beginning and are excellent combat pilots.  This debate isn't about combat pilots though.

 

As to the gear that we carry, it's all necessary.  I carried a 20ish lb radio in my 60-70 lbs of gear which I used to call attack aircraft and crush hajis.  The rest of the gear kept me alive and I wouldn't have left any of it behind when going on missions.  That a-hole in the rag may be comfortable but he also died hungry.  The discomfort from my gear was definitely a good pain.

 

I'm tired of people talking about the military like they know something when they have no experience.

 

Ok, rant over...

[Guest Cazador]

The Marines have already allowed 4 women try the combat officers school and none have made it past the first week. I already stated this is an idiotic idea. My reasoning is based on the number of women that can actually pass any of the standard infantry schools now never mind any of the elite schools. If 1 in a 300 could  pass the Marine school of infantry it would take over 4000 attempts to make up one squad. Can we afford that much wasted time attempting to train failures? The Marine Corps does not have enough women in service to even make one qualified platoon. So are they going to put the poster child on the front lines with a platoon of males? Will the congress put pressure on the Brass to get their integrated combat force? which will result in lower standards. Which means that the company that makes the bags very wealthy. That company must be owned by a politician.  Ok my position stated.  

Pink Poodles is good I submit for the SEALS to be the Mermaids. I haven't figure how that acronym works other than Merry Maids. 

[Joseg]

Funny that as a 19 yr old, I was in charge of the lives of 4 people and not for once did I not think about putting myself in front of them if shit ever hit the fan.  Jonnin - we have a saying, "Stay in your lane", military is not something you have experience with, so please refrain from commenting on the military.. 

[DMark]

.... Throughout history women have fought alongside men or by themselves, Amazons, and Viking Shield maidens are more familiar with the western culture.....

 

Agree 100% in regard to your comments about having the gear you need for the mission (and the strength to carry it).  Your point about age is also spot-on.  As a young Infantry 2LT in my early 20s, I often wondered how I was going to make it to retirement carrying such loads well into my 40s.

 

However - - -  You do realize that Amazons and Shield Maidens are literary works of the legends created in Greek mythology and Scandinavian folklore.  

 

BUT, I must admit that I have enjoyed Katheryn Winnick's role of Lagertha in the television series "Vikings."

 

 

AND before anybody comes in with the Dirty Old Man comments, its because Lagertha reminds me of my head-strong and very competitive daughter.

[Guest nra37922]

Ahhh, young love with full auto's and hand grenades.  Should make a great sitcom.

[c.a.willard]

Well since there are no longer any front lines in warfare the majority of this discussion is already moot.  Its called asymmetric warfare and women are already fighting in it just like men. I spent 10 years active as a MP in the Army.  It was the closest females in the Army could get to "Combat Arms" I've humped the same gear as infantry and so have my female Soldiers.  Ive had men and women who couldn't hack it.  Gender had very little to do with it.   They lived in shitty conditions including when it was that time of the month without any problems a good bit of the time doing missions side by side with Infantry units including one of my deployments were we worked directy with a marine infantry battalion.  

 

For those who still think women cant hack it take a look at the success the Army's Sapper school.  Fully a third of the women who have attended have passed the course and guess what the school didnt change their standards to make it happen.  They passed all on their own merits.    Someone please tell me one of those women isnt able to handle the physical demands of the infantry.

[Romad7]

Agree 100% in regard to your comments about having the gear you need for the mission (and the strength to carry it). Your point about age is also spot-on. As a young Infantry 2LT in my early 20s, I often wondered how I was going to make it to retirement carrying such loads well into my 40s.

However - - - You do realize that Amazons and Shield Maidens are literary works of the legends created in Greek mythology and Scandinavian folklore.

BUT, I must admit that I have enjoyed Katheryn Winnick's role of Lagertha in the television series "Vikings."



AND before anybody comes in with the Dirty Old Man comments, its because Lagertha reminds me of my head-strong and very competitive daughter.

Reminds me of this picture I saw outside the office of a former A-10 pilot who was a female.


I would love to see all female teams killing hajjis, could you imagine the morale impact that would have. Edited June 18, 2013 by Romad7

[Dennis1209]

This topic would have to raise it's head!

 

Personally I have mixed emotions on the subject and the jury is still out. Someone on here needs to be a sexist bigot, so here goes...

 

Half of me believes that if you want to be recognized as an equal and have the same privileges and respect, you earn your way and make the same sacrifices and contributions. No special treatment or special lower standards than that of a male because of estrogen, cycles, brains, cramps, mood swings and lack of muscle mass. Where would we be had WWI or WWII been fought by woman, or any conflict for that matter? If a woman wants to be the bull, she had better have the equipment to back it up.

 

In this day and age of women libbers and equality, why not draft them at eighteen and expose them to the same standards, danger and combat as a man? After all, they're reaping all the benefits and rewards men have provided for them the last 250 years of this nations existence.

 

Emotionally, would you feel any different with a woman badly injured / killed next to you in combat, compared to a fellow male soldier? Would she be capable emotionally and physically to drag your injured butt to safety if your a casualty? How about the "friendships" that will surely develop? And the extra logistics required for showering, sleeping, personal needs, etc. on the battle field? Why do woman want to become something they're not equipped for?

 

The other half of me hopes the minority of bull woman succeed in their struggle to become men and get their wish(s) to shut them up. That will not bode well for people like me that don't want they feminine daughters, sisters and wife into the voluntary fighting forces, military draft and foreign combat.

[Dennis1209]

Well since there are no longer any front lines in warfare the majority of this discussion is already moot.  Its called asymmetric warfare and women are already fighting in it just like men. I spent 10 years active as a MP in the Army.  It was the closest females in the Army could get to "Combat Arms" I've humped the same gear as infantry and so have my female Soldiers.  Ive had men and women who couldn't hack it.  Gender had very little to do with it.   They lived in ####ty conditions including when it was that time of the month without any problems a good bit of the time doing missions side by side with Infantry units including one of my deployments were we worked directy with a marine infantry battalion.  

 

For those who still think women cant hack it take a look at the success the Army's Sapper school.  Fully a third of the women who have attended have passed the course and guess what the school didnt change their standards to make it happen.  They passed all on their own merits.    Someone please tell me one of those women isn't able to handle the physical demands of the infantry.

 

I'll call you out on this nonsense...

 

I've had a long career in the Army and served two combat tours. I've been a squad leader, platoon sergeant, and First Sergeant. I've administered and participated in every annual PT test, field exercises, crew serve weapons, etc. Unless it's changed since my retirement in 1990, the standards are not the same, period. I had to do push-ups back straight, chin to the ground, etc. A woman does them rotating on her knees, etc. etc. on and on.

 

Lowering the bar of physical standards for both men and women to pass has been the historical solution. If you're in dire straights and really need a cop, EMT or Fireman, do you want someone showing up who passed lowered standards or do you want the best qualified? Apply my logic to our armed forces or any other occupation where testosterone is a decisive advantage.

 

This all inclusive crap is weakening our fighting forces and critical life saving services all in the name of political correctness. Is it actually making us stronger, or tearing away the fabric of our society?

.

 

 

[Grand Torino]

I spent 26 years in the military. Every time they decided to allow women in certain career fields they swore they'd never lower the physical standards to get them in. Every time they did. I have no reason they will not continue this trend in the future.

 

That being said before anyone starts flaming me for being against women in the military let me say my wife served honorably and expertly for 28 years. She never wanted to be a Seal or Ranger either. She believed in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood...."A man needs to know their limitations".

[Joseg]

Why is it everyone has to say, I humped the same thing as Infantry or I did the same job as Infantry. If that's the case then why didn't you reup as infantry, since you we already doing the job..  

[Guest Cazador]

If there was a need for it I would say ok for the time. But only time there would be a need is if we took every lame piece of crap off the unemployment roles and every eligible male out of the prisons and any of the illegal aliens that want to stay in this country and put them in service. We have been at war for over 10 years and there has not been a need for more combat troops, and we have a voluntary service. So show me where the need for this is. Other than a pussafist liberal agenda.
Can we change the rangers to F-Troop??